Federer: Roland Garros is nothing comparing to Wimbledon [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer: Roland Garros is nothing comparing to Wimbledon

Pages : [1] 2

ys
05-22-2005, 02:26 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2094-1622169,00.html

"If I could choose between winning Wimbledon or Roland Garros, I would always pick Wimbledon. And, looking a long time into the future, if I was to win Wimbledon 10 times but never managed to win the French Open and was then given the choice, I would pick an 11th Wimbledon title rather than a first French.”

I agree with him. How can one even compare..

Lady
05-22-2005, 02:30 PM
It doesn't sound like Roger at all! :p

allanah
05-22-2005, 02:30 PM
*cue indignance, spitting of feathers and livid outrage* :bolt:

The French open isn't nothing, but Wimbledon does indeed rule.

azza
05-22-2005, 02:35 PM
i would rather with the Fo then wimbledon so many lame traditions :rolleyes:

ys
05-22-2005, 02:35 PM
The French open isn't nothing, but Wimbledon does indeed rule.

Of course it does.. Only obvious trolls would deny it.

federer express
05-22-2005, 02:42 PM
if I was to win Wimbledon 10 times but never managed to win the French Open and was then given the choice, I would pick an 11th Wimbledon title rather than a first French.”



BOLLOCKS!!!

allanah
05-22-2005, 02:43 PM
Of course it does.. Only obvious trolls would deny it.

heh :D Having read the whole article only now, you have to wonder how much the fact that he was being interviewed by a British journo influenced his answers.

Rosa Luxembourg
05-22-2005, 02:45 PM
maybe Roger should talk to Pete Sampras to get his prospective ;)

ys
05-22-2005, 02:46 PM
maybe Roger should talk to Pete Sampras to get his prospective ;)

Do you really think that Sampras would choose a RG title over his 7th Wimbledon? No way..

sanpo
05-22-2005, 02:47 PM
Everything he said was okay, and said with true intentions.

Only the thread title was misleading :rolleyes:
Federer: Roland Garros is nothing comparing to Wimbledon

Hagar
05-22-2005, 02:48 PM
I don't believe him.

RodLo
05-22-2005, 02:49 PM
:bs:

Rosa Luxembourg
05-22-2005, 02:49 PM
Do you really think that Sampras would choose a RG title over his 7th Wimbledon? No way..

Quite possible. The only thing that holds some people from naming Pete the best player ever is the fact that he's never won RG.

auwkeung
05-22-2005, 02:50 PM
really??

but i think it's good for him if he wins the four slams to prove to the world that he's capable in winning on all surfaces

Shabazza
05-22-2005, 02:57 PM
Wimbledon indeed has by far a greater meaning for Roger Federer than any other GS, but i don't believe him either.
Winning Wimbledon 11 times rather than 10, should be more important to him, than beeing one of the few players in history who won all GS on all surfaces??

Neely
05-22-2005, 03:02 PM
I would agree with Federer's feeling about Wimbledon. If I were a pro player and if I could chose to win only one Grand Slam, OF COURSE I would select Wimbledon to be the one. Also before winning the French Open, I would more like to have won US Open or Australian Open before. But after a few Wimbledon titles and having won all other Grand Slams except the French Open, of course I would like to complete all four Slams in my career. Therefore, I would disagree with Federer to rather have an 11th Wimbledon title than a 1st French Open one.

BTW, this article is no fake, is it? So Roger did this really say? :eek: ... if true, it's good to see that he has basically the "right" view on Wimbledon, because for me it's also simply magic, the best that can happen to a tennis player, the most important...

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 03:09 PM
i don't think he's lying
I know that Wimbledon means a ton to him. but to think that it means THIS MUCH, did come as a bit of a surprise

He has surely eased himself of any pressure at the FO.... only at the expense of pressure at W

ys
05-22-2005, 03:10 PM
Quite possible. The only thing that holds some people from naming Pete the best player ever is the fact that he's never won RG.

Choosing 1st RG over his 5th US Open? Quite possible. Maybe. But over Wimbledon? No. You don't trade the ultimate achievement in sport for anything.

WyveN
05-22-2005, 03:15 PM
Roger realises the importance of a career slam but his point was he doesnt want to trade off Wimbledon titles to achieve it and he doesnt have to, there is no reason he cant win both of them in the same season if his good enough.

name_change
05-22-2005, 03:17 PM
if he REALLY said that, i truly wish the french fans take offense and boo him to death when he plays.

name_change
05-22-2005, 03:20 PM
I Love all the grand slams, and my fave is RG. i just love it. true, wimbledon has all the notions of "class" but heck it, if it comes to winning ONE slam, i'd love the US Open. more money. and i love the way "US Open" sounds compared to the way the others do. just my thoughts.

Billy Moonshine
05-22-2005, 03:20 PM
I presume that Fed said this in answer to a question from a journo. He should have said both were amazing titles.
I think he is talking rubbish. The French is just as good a title as Wimby imo. It has tradition, prestige, it's highly regarded by players and fans. He is only sucking up like this, I think, because he is wimbledon champ and wants even better treatment there when he arrives next month, nursing a bruised ego after a lesson in Claycourt tennis dished out by someone who DOES think RG is a fantastic title. And I really hope it's the same man who taught him so beautifully last year: GUGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

WyveN
05-22-2005, 03:25 PM
He is only sucking up like this, I think, because he is wimbledon champ and wants even better treatment there when he arrives next month

If Roger was saying this for some sort of PR then he would say it prior to Wimbledon rather then on the eve of the French Open.
Anyway we dont know the question or whether that was the full answer.

Billy Moonshine
05-22-2005, 03:30 PM
Well I just read the article and it is written like Fed just offers up this comment. Of course, i know that doesn't really mean anything but if he did, well it seems like sucking up, and a little childish too. As if he is saying, well I havent won it but who cares, i've won Wimby and I like that so much better anyway. It's a stupid thing to say and especially on the eve of the French. If they hear about it, he's gonna get a bad, and deservedly so, reception.

ys
05-22-2005, 03:32 PM
If Roger was saying this for some sort of PR then he would say it prior to Wimbledon rather then on the eve of the French Open.


The problem is not what he said.. the problem is that so many people on these boards think that he said something extraordinary.. He just said what every sane tennis fan knows. It is not offensive .. what he said. Truth is never offensive. I am sure he does think that RG is a great title, and all kind of monacos or miami are nothing comparing to RG. Just not Wimbledon. Wimbledon is a pinnacle of the sport. How many people won all four Slams? Quite a few. How many people reached the pinnacle of sport 10 times? 11 times? No one. What's so difficult to understand then when Roger prefers the latter to the former? If he wins Wimbledon 10 times, he is easily the best ever regardless of anything else. If he wins Wimbledon 11 times, he is even likelier to stay the best ever in future. Obvious.

Lady
05-22-2005, 03:35 PM
if he REALLY said that, i truly wish the french fans take offense and boo him to death when he plays.

They will if this quote is publicised in French articles. ;)

Lady
05-22-2005, 03:36 PM
If he wins Wimbledon 10 times, he is easily the best ever regardless of anything else. If he wins Wimbledon 11 times, he is even likelier to stay the best ever in future. Obvious.

But it's still always will be mentioned that he never won the French!

richard gasquet
05-22-2005, 03:37 PM
booooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o :o :o (french answer :D :D )LOL!!!

I think this article is a fake,I heard a federer interview and he has a lot of respect for RG and really want to win it because its the hardest one to win he said.He is a very cool guy and dont think can say such arrogant comment.

:wavey:

joeb_uk
05-22-2005, 03:38 PM
Sure if he wants to win a tournament like wimbledon so many times where virtually no one can challenge him at the moment, rather than winning the french which would be a huge challenge for him (who are we to disagree with him :D )

ys
05-22-2005, 03:39 PM
They will if this quote is publicised in French articles. ;)

You mean, they - the French - are that stupid? DO you realise that it is offensive .. what you just said.. Would Austalians boo him if he said that about Australian Open? Would Americans boo him if he said that about US Open? Surely not.

Lady
05-22-2005, 03:41 PM
You mean, they - the French - are that stupid? DO you realise that it is offensive .. what you just said.. Would Austalians boo him if he said that about Australian Open? Would Americans boo him if he said that about US Open? Surely not.

The French crowd loves to boo players, and often with no reason at all! And somehow I'm sure that you know it.

ys
05-22-2005, 03:41 PM
But it's still always will be mentioned that he never won the French!

Why should he be bothered about someone mentioning that? There are and there will always be idiots int his world. There is nothing you can do about it. If he wins all Masters except, say, for Monaco, someone would certainly bring that up too.. Why care?

name_change
05-22-2005, 03:42 PM
You mean, they - the French - are that stupid? DO you realise that it is offensive .. what you just said.. Would Austalians boo him if he said that about Australian Open? Would Americans boo him if he said that about US Open? Surely not.
well, the french fans are known for their notoriety. the US fans are too, to some extent, but they normally tone it down halfway through. the aussie fans rock. so sweet.

name_change
05-22-2005, 03:43 PM
Why should he be bothered about someone mentioning that? There are and there will always be idiots int his world. There is nothing you can do about it. If he wins all Masters except, say, for Monaco, someone would certainly bring that up too.. Why care?
you know exactly what she means. dont pretend you dont.

nermo
05-22-2005, 03:43 PM
Well, of course..everyone knows Wimbledon means a lot more than RG for Federer at this time of his career..but only few humble hints of my own:
1)Federer..this conversation was a lot far from diplomatic answers :o ..it doesnt sound like him talking nicely and wisely as usual ..specially when its only 2 days far from meeting the French crowd..i wouldnot have done it if i were him..(and i ll never be.. :silly: )

2) Wimbledon is more important for him at this point of his career..but i guess the more accurate word is.. its his favorite..and thats different from telling that RG isnot that important ..cuz when u re number one and if u remain number one player..then..ur ambition ll always to beat every challenge u meat..and we all know that RG is a big interesting Challenge !!

Experimentee
05-22-2005, 03:44 PM
The French Open is worth as much as Wimbledon, of course the media which is dominated by countries filled with fastcourters would have us beleive that Wimbledon is better, but I highly doubt that all players would rather have Wimbledon than RG. As for an 11th Wimbledon rather than a first RG, that is just really stupid.

name_change
05-22-2005, 03:46 PM
The French Open is worth as much as Wimbledon, of course the media which is dominated by countries filled with fastcourters would have us beleive that Wimbledon is better, but I highly doubt that all players would rather have Wimbledon than RG. As for an 11th Wimbledon rather than a first RG, that is just really stupid.
:kiss:

hey girl!

ys
05-22-2005, 03:46 PM
The French crowd loves to boo players, and often with no reason at all! And somehow I'm sure that you know it.

If they feel like booing someone, that's OK.. Hingis always apreciated RG. They booed her to death. Serena was not doing anything wrong in 2003, they booed her to death too. They had their reason.. But don't make me believe that they would boo someone for prefering Wimbledon to RG.

yanchr
05-22-2005, 03:47 PM
As if he is saying, well I havent won it but who cares, i've won Wimby and I like that so much better anyway. It's a stupid thing to say and especially on the eve of the French. If they hear about it, he's gonna get a bad, and deservedly so, reception.
Where did he actually say that? From what I know, he cares about this RG very much, surely more than you would expect. He likes Wimbledon better than any other tournament, which he never hides it. And here he just underlined it again. Though I actually doubt his sincerity in saying so.

And I don't remember when he was well treated in French :confused:

Billy Moonshine
05-22-2005, 03:49 PM
It's a stupid thing to say full stop.
Why compare them anyway?
Who cares what he prefers? Just win the French Roger!

Lady
05-22-2005, 03:50 PM
If they feel like booing someone, that's OK.. Hingis always apreciated RG. They booed her to death. Serena was not doing anything wrong in 2003, they booed her to death too. They had their reason.. But don't make me believe that they would boo someone for prefering Wimbledon to RG.

Somehow I doubt I have the power to make you believe in anything.

This sounds so fake and not like Roger at all. I don't believe he would say it, even if he feels that way!

ys
05-22-2005, 03:51 PM
1)Federer..this conversation was a lot far from diplomatic answers :o ..it doesnt sound like him talking nicely and wisely as usual ..specially when its only 2 days far from meeting the French crowd..i wouldnot have done it if i were him..(and i ll never be.. :silly: )

You seriously think it matters a tiniest bit? You can affect a girl by booing her. Not a man. Name me a single major ATP match that was majorly affected by booing. Men don't care. They play Davis Cup all the time. It won't get any worse than Davis Cup athmosphere, will it? And booing the greatest artist of contemporary game would only further tarnish French crowd reputation. Perhaps irreparably.

tennischick
05-22-2005, 03:52 PM
a headline worthy of the Fool. ys i'm shocked -- bacchanalia does not become you. stick to your lefty theories -- those have a tad more credibility. :o

ys
05-22-2005, 03:52 PM
This sounds so fake and not like Roger at all. I don't believe he would say it, even if he feels that way!

All questions to Sunday Times, OK?

Skyward
05-22-2005, 03:53 PM
Assuming all GS are equal, players have the the right to prefer one or the other.

Lady
05-22-2005, 03:54 PM
All questions to Sunday Times, OK?

I know it. I didn't say you faked it, right? ;)

But why are you so desparate to prove this point of view? ;)

ys
05-22-2005, 03:56 PM
I know it. I didn't say you faked it, right? ;)

Right. I never faked anything in my life. Just not my thing. Unless it is April 1st, of course.. ;)

But why are you so desparate to prove this point of view? ;)

I am not desperate ... I have no point to prove, really.. What point are you talking about?

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 03:57 PM
I presume that Fed said this in answer to a question from a journo. He should have said both were amazing titles.
I think he is talking rubbish. The French is just as good a title as Wimby imo.

you said it yourself -- The French is just as good a title as Wimby in your opinion
being as it is the question was asked to Roger Federer and not Mr. Moonshine, Federer is not talking rubbish. He is stating his opinion, which differs from yours. Why should he say both are amazing titles if that is not what he thinks?

Lady
05-22-2005, 03:58 PM
I am not desperate ... I have no point to prove, really.. What point are you talking about?

This is getting redicilous.
You know what I'm talking about.

Why it's so important to you that people here would admit that Wimby is more important then RG?

ys
05-22-2005, 04:00 PM
being as it is the question was asked to Roger Federer and not Mr. Moonshine, he is not talking rubbish. He is stating his opinion

Even if it is an opinion, it is an opinion of someone whose understanding of the sport is supreme to anyone's else. Still it is not an opinion. It's obvious. It's like arguing with a soccer player that winning a national championship is better than being a part of World Cup winning team. Surely, there are some moronic fans of a player's team who would say so..

SanTaureau Fan
05-22-2005, 04:06 PM
Actually... How many people know how many times Sampras won Wimbledon? I'm sure the casual tennis fan know he won it many times, but wouldn't be able to say a number. I really fail to see how it's going to make a difference historically if player Xwins 10 Wimbledon instead of 11.

But anyone into tennis knows that Sampras never won the French Open. The French not being as important as Wimbledon? Yes. But preferring to win Wimbledon over the French when you already won it? BULLSHIT. Proving you can win on both fast and slow surface is more important than winning the same tournament over and over again.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 04:09 PM
Even if it is an opinion, it is an opinion of someone whose understanding of the sport is supreme to anyone's else. Still it is not an opinion. It's obvious. It's like arguing with a soccer player that winning a national championship is better than being a part of World Cup winning team. Surely, there are some moronic fans of a player's team who would say so..

It's his personal tastes, and this is what he believes so that's it

Other players have their own, sometimes strange, priorities. Sampras made it ultra clear that he would never put Davis cup before his personal goals.
On the other hand Hewitt has made no bones about the fact that Davis cup is more important to him than many other tourneys

And Roger has said that winning the FO means less to him than winning Wimbledon repeatedly
Just different tastes.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 04:11 PM
The French not being as important as Wimbledon? Yes. But preferring to win Wimbledon over the French when you already won it? BULLSHIT. Proving you can win on both fast and slow surface is more important than winning the same tournament over and over again.

It's his own personal tastes. Its Bullshit to you, but the journalists are probably less interested in what your opinion on this matter is and asked him. Federer has stated his preferences and they happen to be different from yours. What is the big deal?

ys
05-22-2005, 04:14 PM
Why it's so important to you that people here would admit that Wimby is more important then RG?

Not really important.. Only if for educational purposes..

But seriously.. no need to prove that..

We know that there is a group of biased people who would disagree with that.. That is, many people from claycourt countries - nationalism sometimes do make people make very biased judgements.. As well as a group of girls and gay boys who are sexually attracted to Latino type of men. Oh, ok, there is also that little group of completely irrational people whose worship of clay is totally driven by something completely silly - like hating Sampras ( because of being an Agassi fans, for instance, and that - RG-worshipping is the only method that they really can use to support their point ), right, tennischick?

But that has nothing to do with tennis, right? When people are totally unbiased - like myself - it is easy to come to admitting and understanding a simple truth. Seriously, 6 or 7 years ago, when I didn't know the sport as well as I know now, I also thought that RG is equal to W ( partly perhaps because Sampras's serve did make Wimbledon all more annoying ).

Lady
05-22-2005, 04:16 PM
Not really important.. Only if for educational purposes..

But seriously.. no need to prove that..

We know that there is a group of biased people who would disagree with that.. That is, many people from claycourt countries - nationalism sometimes do make people make very biased judgements.. As well as a group of girls and gay boys who are sexually attracted to Latino type of men. Oh, ok, there is also that little group of completely irrational people whose worship of clay is totally driven by something completely silly - like hating Sampras ( because of being an Agassi fans, for instance, and that - RG-worshipping is the only method that they really can use to support their point ), right, tennischick?

But that has nothing to do with tennis, right? When people are totally unbiased - like myself - it is easy to come to admitting and understanding a simple truth. Seriously, 6 or 7 years ago, when I didn't know the sport as well as I know now, I also thought that RG is equal to W ( because Sampras's serve did make Wimbledon all more annoying ).

For me, Roger can like Wimbledon more, and it's all his opinion. I don't really care.
But I don't believe that he would prefer 11th W to the 1st RG, and that's my opinion. That's all!

SanTaureau Fan
05-22-2005, 04:17 PM
It's his own personal tastes. Its Bullshit to you, but the journalists are probably less interested in what your opinion on this matter is and asked him. Federer has stated his preferences and they happen to be different from yours. What is the big deal?

The "big deal" is coming from you, as you felt the need to comment on what I said.

SanTaureau Fan
05-22-2005, 04:24 PM
But that has nothing to do with tennis, right? When people are totally unbiased - like myself - it is easy to come to admitting and understanding a simple truth. Seriously, 6 or 7 years ago, when I didn't know the sport as well as I know now, I also thought that RG is equal to W ( partly perhaps because Sampras's serve did make Wimbledon all more annoying ).

Federer is biased too. If he would have won the French Open 3 times and never won Wimbledon, he would put more values on the tournaments he won instead of gloryfying Wimbledon the way he does.

Fed KNOWS that he's going to own Wimbledon for the years to come, so of course he presents Wimbledon as being DA SHIT.

Reminds me of the Graf / Navratilova debate. Funny that Graf fans are the ones who say double is not important, and Navratilova fans insist on the importance of double.

All a coincidence, of course.

Really, I do think Wimbledon is the ultimate tournament to win, but it's not *that* important to the point that winning other Slams is just a sort of bonus. Having a certain success at the French is important too.

Skyward
05-22-2005, 04:25 PM
Not really important.. Only if for educational purposes..

We know that there is a group of biased people who would disagree with that.. That is, many people from claycourt countries - nationalism sometimes do make people make very biased judgements.. As well as a group of girls and gay boys who are sexually attracted to Latino type of men. Oh, ok, there is also that little group of completely irrational people whose worship of clay is totally driven by something completely silly - like hating Sampras ( because of being an Agassi fans, for instance, and that - RG-worshipping is the only method that they really can use to support their point ), right, tennischick?



http://www.academiafans.com/galeria/albums/smileys/thumb_lol.gif

Unfortunately, there's some truth in it. But I'd like to think that only a handful of "fans" fit into this sad description.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 04:25 PM
The "big deal" is coming from you, as you felt the need to comment on what I said.

yes because your comment was weird. Federer has his opinion and they don't become false, or lies or Bullshit because you happen to think differently from him

SanTaureau Fan
05-22-2005, 04:28 PM
yes because your comment was weird. Federer has his opinion and they don't become false, or lies or Bullshit because you happen to think differently from him

So Federer is entitled to his opinion, but I'm not entitled to have an opinion on his opinion?

I happen to think his opinion is bullshit. That is MY opinion. Winning the French Open for the first time is more important than winning Wimbledon for the 11th times when you won it 10 times already. Winning Wimbledon 11 times without winning the French would suggest he's not a complete player, as he's not able to dominate on slower surface the way he would do at Wimbledon.

the cat
05-22-2005, 04:28 PM
Well said RodLo. :shout: This is BS from Federer. :bs: A career grand slam is so rare and much more important that Federer winning another Wimbledon. And I thought the same of Samparas. I am sure he would give up 1 Wimbledon title for 1 French Open title and have a career grand slam.

Well said Lady. Maybe Federer should talk to Safin about why the French Open is better than Wimbledon. ;)

I prefer Wimbledon, U.S. Open. Australian Open and French Open in that order. But it's close. And it's pure folly for Federer to knock Roland Garros likethat right as the tournament is about to commence. Does he want the critical Parisian crowd to boo him? :mad: Federer went to great lengths to knock Roland Garros in favor of Wimbledon and I think that's a public relations faux pas on his part.

tangerine_dream
05-22-2005, 04:30 PM
Thanks for the misleading thread title, ys. Very Tennis Fool of you. :p

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 04:32 PM
So Federer is entitled to his opinion, but I'm not entitled to have an opinion on his opinion?

I happen to think his opinion is bullshit. That is MY opinion. Winning the French Open for the first time is more important than winning Wimbledon for the 11th times when you won it 10 times already. Winning Wimbledon 11 times without winning the French would suggest he's not a complete player, as he's not able to dominate on slower surface the way he would do at Wimbledon.

and I have an opinion on your opinion on his opinion and voiced it

I happen to think that the layperson is not able to understand how and why certain tournaments take on special meanings for them, so the layperson has to accept that as the one who is actually playing the sport, the professional knows better than the average ranter on MTF

SanTaureau Fan
05-22-2005, 04:33 PM
Thanks for the misleading thread title, ys. Very Tennis Fool of you. :p

What is misleading about the title, it reflects pretty much well what Fed thinks about the French, no :confused:

SanTaureau Fan
05-22-2005, 04:33 PM
and I have an opinion on your opinion on his opinion and voiced it

That's cool with me. :wavey:

Julio1974
05-22-2005, 04:34 PM
Very easy to think like this, when you don't play good enough to win RG.

Skyward
05-22-2005, 04:38 PM
A career grand slam is so rare and much more important that Federer winning another Wimbledon.

To whom? It's his own business what titles and how many times he wants to win.

brickhousesupporter
05-22-2005, 04:53 PM
I personally feel that a Roland Garros title does not defind a players greatness. How many of the great players have not won Roland Garros, but have won Wimbledon and the US Open and are considered great? How many players have won multiple roland garros titles and are just a footnote in tennis history.?

I think Roger knows this and that is why he feels that way.

Tennis Fool
05-22-2005, 04:54 PM
You can affect a girl by booing her. Not a man. Name me a single major ATP match that was majorly affected by booing. Men don't care. They play Davis Cup all the time. It won't get any worse than Davis Cup athmosphere, will it? And booing the greatest artist of contemporary game would only further tarnish French crowd reputation. Perhaps irreparably.
Safin doesn't like being booed. He is usually booed after the match. In Barcelona he said he'd think about not coming there again after being booed.

the cat
05-22-2005, 04:58 PM
To tennis history Skyward. Federer is supposedly all about tennis history and his wanting to win an 11th Wimbledon title instead of his first French Open and the rare career grand slam is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever heard a tennis player say. :eek: And his comments are a slap in the face to the French Open and to those who love the French Open. Of the four grand slam the French Open is my least favorite. But for Federer to go to such great lengths to put down the French Open is astonishing. :( And I wonder if the French media and crowd will give Roger are hard time about this. They should. Roger is free to make whatever commnets he wants to. But saying he would rather win an 11th Wim,bledon title instrad of his first French open and the career grand slam is dissapointing to hear. And I don't believe it for a second.

I am sure Borg would give 1 of his 6 Wimbledon titles for 1 U.S. Open title. Borg's histroy is that he's an all time great who couldn't win the U.S. Open. That will be with him forever.

Skyward
05-22-2005, 05:01 PM
To tennis history Skyward.

He's not duscussing his place in tennis history in this particular article. It's too early anyway.

the cat
05-22-2005, 05:03 PM
Federer is all about tennis history and tennis experts are already calling him an all time great tennis player. So he has to accept that he is viewed as an all time great.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 05:09 PM
And his comments are a slap in the face to the French Open and to those who love the French Open. Of the four grand slam the French Open is my least favorite. But for Federer to go to such great lengths to put down the French Open is astonishing. :( And I wonder if the French media and crowd will give Roger are hard time about this. They should. Roger is free to make whatever commnets he wants to. But saying he would rather win an 11th Wim,bledon title instrad of his first French open and the career grand slam is dissapointing to hear. And I don't believe it for a second.

Players have long put down other tournaments without getting booed off stage. This includes those with the Grass-for-cows belief (lendl, rios) and others who have dissed W such as Marat

I think spectators are wise enough to understand that players have their own preferences. Federer has not said that he does not want to win the FO, or that it is not important to him. All that he is doing his underlining just HOW important Wimbledon is to him --those are HIS tastes

Skyward
05-22-2005, 05:09 PM
Federer is all about tennis history and tennis experts are already calling him an all time great tennis player. So he has to accept that he is viewed as an all time great.

You can not be serious. It's not Federer's problem. If tennis experts want to hear opinions from all time greats about RG, it's only logical to ask Sampras, Laver, etc.

Shy
05-22-2005, 05:12 PM
I think that Roger prefer Wimbledon for now. When he will start doing better in RG, he will probably change his opinion on it.He was not so found either of the USopen before last year.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 05:16 PM
I think that Roger prefer Wimbledon for now. When he will start doing better in RG, he will probably change his opinion on it.He was not so found either of the USopen before last year.

but even after winning the USO, he has never gone on to say that it is his goal to go defending it
So I'm not sure if winning RG will make him change his opinion on where it stands on his priorities

There is no doubt in my mind that players want to win all the Slams, but they also have their own personal preferences and emotions about each of them which are different from slam to slam

Chris Seahorse
05-22-2005, 05:22 PM
Frankly if Federer would rather win an 11th Wimbledon than a 1st Roland Garros title then all I can say is good luck Roger at Wimbledon this year. As for Roland Garros, I hope the title goes to someone else who has a greater appreciation for it. I, for one, however would never be able to even consider regarding him as the greatest all time player until he has won Roland Garros at least once.

the cat
05-22-2005, 05:34 PM
I am serious Skyward. I don't fool around with tennis history.

But I must say I am surpised at what Federer said even though he has a right to say what he wants. Pete Sampras and Stefan Edberg who desperately wanted to win the French Open and the rare and historic career grand slam just couldn't do it even though they tried their best. But they never ran down the French Open in an interview the way Federer did. I guess I am still surprised and dissapointed by what Federer said and the lengths he went to to praise Wimbledon and make the French Open seem insignificant. :(

Well said Chris. I agree with you that I want the 2005 men's French Open champion to be someone who reveres the tournament.

Anyway I've had my say on this topic. :wavey:

Julio1974
05-22-2005, 05:34 PM
I think that there are two factors that may influence your preferences about GS:

1) first, how you play on each surface. For instance, Safin hates Wimbledom. Why? Because he has never played well. The same reasoning would apply to most Argentine and Spanish players (with the exception of Nalbandian).
2) second, there cultural factors. In Argentina, it's clear that RG is the most important GS and players grow up with that cultural influence. Every Argentine player's dream is to win RG. Gaudio's winning in RG was much more important than Sabatini winning the US Open.

Bilbo
05-22-2005, 05:35 PM
If he really said this it means he don't give a shit to win all Grand Slams, so Agassi will ever be the better player.

Shy
05-22-2005, 05:37 PM
I think that there are two factors that may influence your preferences about GS:

1) first, how you play on each surface. For instance, Safin hates Wimbledom. Why? Because he has never played well. The same reasoning would apply to most Argentine and Spanish players (with the exception of Nalbandian).
2) second, there cultural factors. In Argentina, it's clear that RG is the most important GS and players grow up with that cultural influence. Every Argentine player's dream is to win RG. Gaudio's winning in RG was much more important than Sabatini winning the US Open.
Exactly, but I think that number 1 play a bigger factor than number 2.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 05:40 PM
If he really said this it means he don't give a shit to win all Grand Slams, so Agassi will ever be the better player.

That depends
Many people consider Sampras the better player than Agassi, and Sampras never career slammed
So if Roger goes on to win more than 8 slams without the FO, it is not clear that he would not be considered by some still better than agassi

Skyward
05-22-2005, 05:41 PM
I But they never ran down the French Open in an interview the way Federer did.

Federer did not say anything negative about the tournament itself and did not put down anyone who won RG multiple times.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 05:46 PM
Exactly Skyward. He has never said anything about the FO being a tournament he doesn't care to win, or is not important to him
The only new thing that came out of this interview (even as a surprise to me) is just how important Wimbledon is to him. He probably wants to do great at all the other slams, but there is no say on how much a particular tournament and the memories it evokes might mean for a player. AMEN

NATAS81
05-22-2005, 06:10 PM
Federer would know.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:13 PM
You seriously think it matters a tiniest bit? You can affect a girl by booing her. Not a man. Name me a single major ATP match that was majorly affected by booing. Men don't care. They play Davis Cup all the time. It won't get any worse than Davis Cup athmosphere, will it? And booing the greatest artist of contemporary game would only further tarnish French crowd reputation. Perhaps irreparably.

:haha:

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:19 PM
But that has nothing to do with tennis, right? When people are totally unbiased - like myself - it is easy to come to admitting and understanding a simple truth.

:rolls:

Ah, too good ys. Simply too good.

I don't agree with Federer's opinion, I have no problem saying that even though he is one of my favourite players. Personally, if I as a player were ever lucky enough to win 10 Slams, I'd like an equal complement of RG and Wimbledon titles. But, I would suggest that although he doesn't regard it highly in comparison to Wimbledon, that doesn't mean posters should think it has no value to him and that he doesn't ever want to win it. I'm convinced he does, but he doesn't want it to become a Lendl or Sampras-like obsession to the exclusion of everything else in his career.

There is no way he is going to win RG this year, or any other year, if he doesn't care about it, so if he does end up holding the trophy in two weeks' time, it shouldn't be thought of as something that meant nothing to him, or was just routine. That said, I can quite understand the disappointment of those whose favourite tournament is RG to hear the world no. 1 speaking of it in these terms, and as a Federer fan I can only hope that it has no bearing when he is actually playing in the tournament.

JennyS
05-22-2005, 07:19 PM
I wonder if Roger believes deep down inside that winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year will be difficult if not impossible. If he wins Roland Garros, would he still play Halle on grass a couple days later? I think if these two Slams were a few weeks further apart, he wouldn't be saying this.

I completely disagree that 11 Wimbledons is more impressive than 10 Wimbledons and 1 French. I think that Borg's five year streak of winning both of those Slams back to back is more impressive than Sampras' 7 Wimbledon's. There is nothing more challenging in men's tennis than winning those two majors year in and year out.

I personally think Wimbledon's prestige and superiority are way overrated. The grass is hardly ever used and it's such a weird surface. I like it, but I HATE the way its trumpeted at the Slam above all Slams. I mean some people will rank the Slams like this...

WIMBLEDON







US Open and French OPen

Australian Open

It's reaaaaally snobby and I think with the modern game the US and Aussie Opens are a better indication of who the best players are. Monica Seles' lack of Wimbledon titles is not detrimental to her greatness at all.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:24 PM
You're optimistic in thinking that most people rank the US and French Opens on the same level. I agree, all Slams are of equal value, though if I had a preference it would be towards the natural surfaces in the middle of the calendar. Wilander said in an interview earlier this year that when Federer lost to Kuerten at RG he already had one eye on Wimbledon, and that players and the media needed to stop the pretence that Wimbledon was the most important and prestigious Slam. There's a good reason why he would say that, and an equally good reason why Federer would value Wimbledon above everything else, but I'd like to think that whatever tournament he is currently entered into, and certainly every GS, is his priority at that time.

EternalFlame
05-22-2005, 07:32 PM
Wimbledon is boring, RG not.. That's the difference. RG is more fun. But more special? It is up to the player. For Marat RG is the most important tourney for Roger it is Wimledon...

JCF
05-22-2005, 07:32 PM
Saying one slam is better than another is just a lack of respect, but why am i surprised, Federer can really make some arrogant comments to make himself look good.

If he really wants to be considered the greatest ever, I suggest he gets it together and wins at least 2 RG titles, and a RG-Wimby back to back as well.

ys
05-22-2005, 07:36 PM
But, I would suggest that although he doesn't regard it highly in comparison to Wimbledon, that doesn't mean posters should think it has no value to him and that he doesn't ever want to win it. ...

There is no way he is going to win RG this year, or any other year, if he doesn't care about it.

Can you read?

When he has ever said that he does not care about it? Where did I say that? All that he said that he values W incomparably higher. That's all.

Chloe le Bopper
05-22-2005, 07:37 PM
Old news.

JCF
05-22-2005, 07:37 PM
Wimbledon is boring, RG not.. That's the difference. RG is more fun. But more special? It is up to the player. For Marat RG is the most important tourney for Roger it is Wimledon...
Yeh pretty much. RG is much more predictable, longer points, more rallies, more skill, finesse. Its so much more draining on a player to win RG than Wimby, where realistically only a handful can win it.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:38 PM
Every top player makes arrogant comments from time to time, relatively speaking Federer is one of the humbler ones. And he did say that to him Wimbledon means more than RG, he didn't say that it was an objective fact that one was superior to the other.

I'm not trying to make people agree with his opinion, because it can certainly be objected to on several levels, but having read a lot of quotes from him on his personal career ambitions, I'm not sure that "being considered the greatest ever" is one of them. As a fan I hope he can get close to that, though I don't honestly think he will ever be regarded as the greatest player, but at the end of the day it's his career and he's the one making the decisions.

Skyward
05-22-2005, 07:41 PM
Saying one slam is better than another is just a lack of respect,
.


Before you post, please read the aricle, not only the title of this thread. Thanks.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:41 PM
Can you read?

When he has ever said that he does not care about it? Where did I say that? All that he said that he values W incomparably higher. That's all.

You're not one of the posters I was referring to; you're far too busy peddling your "Wimbledon > RG" agenda for that. But there are others who, understandably, are taking it to mean that he doesn't care about RG at all. Your wonderfully accurate thread title is certainly encouraging that view.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:44 PM
Yeh pretty much. RG is much more predictable, longer points, more rallies, more skill, finesse. Its so much more draining on a player to win RG than Wimby, where realistically only a handful can win it.

I take it you mean unpredictable. ;)

I agree with you on the longer points and more rallies, but I would dispute that it always takes more skill and finesse to win at RG than at Wimbledon - it depends on the player. Federer hasn't won two Wimbledon titles just by thundering serves down and then smacking big forehands.

JCF
05-22-2005, 07:47 PM
I take it you mean unpredictable. ;)

I agree with you on the longer points and more rallies, but I would dispute that it always takes more skill and finesse to win at RG than at Wimbledon - it depends on the player. Federer hasn't won two Wimbledon titles just by thundering serves down and then smacking big forehands.
Yeh unpredictable.

Federer is of course very skillful, but many players who have done well at Wimbeldon recently, well i wouldn't say they were all serve, but they certainly wouldn't be where they are without a big serve.

Seeing ace after ace being banged down is not exactly my idea of exciting tennis.

Scotso
05-22-2005, 07:48 PM
Well if he doesn't care about it then I hope he doesn't win it.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:51 PM
I agree with that, but my point is that Wimbledon is about more than just ace after ace if you look close enough - in the same way RG is about more than just endless grinding topspin rallies, if its detractors would look past the stereotypical image and actually watch the tennis properly.

Anyway, the whole reason why ys posted this article was to reinforce his argument that Wimbledon is much greater than RG by saying "Look - if Federer thinks that way, it must be true!" Federer also likes AC/DC, Playstation and Silence of the Lambs, it doesn't mean I share his tastes in any of those departments.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 07:52 PM
Saying one slam is better than another is just a lack of respect, but why am i surprised, Federer can really make some arrogant comments to make himself look good.
Nowhere in the interview did he say that Wimbledon is a better slam than the FO -- He has only said things which imply that he personally prefers Wimbledon. It does not mean that he does not think of the other slams as important

Marat has done the same thing about Wimbledon v/s the FO. He has made it clear that he did like playing on grass (even threatened not to show up again last year) and said that winning the FO means more to him

There are more arrogant ways of showing you think the FO is unimportant --one is to turn down a WC like Scud did

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:52 PM
Well if he doesn't care about it then I hope he doesn't win it.

My point being that he does care about it - at least, the only way he is going to win it is if he does care about it, so don't worry at the prospect of an apathetic and disinterested Federer triumphing here.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 07:54 PM
Anyway, the whole reason why ys posted this article was to reinforce his argument that Wimbledon is much greater than RG by saying "Look - if Federer thinks that way, it must be true!" Federer also likes AC/DC, Playstation and Silence of the Lambs, it doesn't mean I share his tastes in any of those departments.
and pro wrestling according to his official vita :rolleyes:

Billabong
05-22-2005, 07:55 PM
I also have a lot of difficulties to believe him.. I would love soooooooo much to see him win RG:D!!

Scotso
05-22-2005, 07:57 PM
My point being that he does care about it - at least, the only way he is going to win it is if he does care about it, so don't worry at the prospect of an apathetic and disinterested Federer triumphing here.

Well yes, if his heart isn't in it he wouldn't stand a chance against a pumped and determined Nadal, for instance.

Blaze
05-22-2005, 07:58 PM
I also have a lot of difficulties to believe him.. I would love soooooooo much to see him win RG:D!!


Federer do want to win Rg but I think what he is trying to convey is that he don't want to win it at the expense of Wimbledon.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 07:59 PM
and pro wrestling according to his official vita :rolleyes:

Don't remind me... that's why I always find it funny when journalists note how articulate and thoughtful he is and inquire about his intellectual interests, only to find that he's as much of an ignoramus as any top-level sportsman. :lol:

Skyward
05-22-2005, 08:00 PM
Well yes, if his heart isn't in it he wouldn't stand a chance against a pumped and determined Nadal, for instance.

LOL, wishful thinking. By the semis he''ll be very motivated.

JCF
05-22-2005, 08:00 PM
I agree with that, but my point is that Wimbledon is about more than just ace after ace if you look close enough
It is, to an extent and i'm not sterotyping it to be just that, but because of the fast surface points tend to be quicker, and there isn't much chance on many occasions to get into points. Its fascinating to watch the clay court season and then transfer to grass to see the different style in tennis, but I'd just prefer to watch RG because i think there is just something extra about the tennis, and a long baseline rally with a brilliant winner at the end of it while the players decide whether or not to play safe.

It just interests me more, I'm not into all white, or tradition either, the crowds are more exciting at RG. They are biased, but thats sometimes a good thing. Each to their own i guess.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 08:02 PM
Well yes, if his heart isn't in it he wouldn't stand a chance against a pumped and determined Nadal, for instance.

Exactly - and never mind Nadal, he has a whole slew of tough players to get through first before he can even think about that prospect. With the draw he has this year, the only way he will win is if his heart is in it and he is thoroughly motivated to achieve victory. I still think, and I certainly hope, that if he does get defeated it will be because he was outplayed, not because he didn't care about the tournament.

Chloe le Bopper
05-22-2005, 08:04 PM
LOL, wishful thinking. By the semis he''ll be very motivated.
Totally removed from context and void of any original meaning I suppose you could call his quote "wishful thinking". Take the time to read what he quoted and consider his reponse in relation to that if you wish you make sense of what he was actually saying.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 08:05 PM
It is, to an extent and i'm not sterotyping it to be just that, but because of the fast surface points tend to be quicker, and there isn't much chance on many occasions to get into points. Its fascinating to watch the clay court season and then transfer to grass to see the different style in tennis, but I'd just prefer to watch RG because i think there is just something extra about the tennis, and a long baseline rally with a brilliant winner at the end of it while the players decide whether or not to play safe.

It just interests me more, I'm not into all white, or tradition either, the crowds are more exciting at RG. They are biased, but thats sometimes a good thing. Each to their own i guess.

Yes, it is to an extent - in the same way RG is about long rallies to an extent, but you still see plenty of baseline rallies on grass (nowadays, anyway) and plenty of net points at RG, often through dropshot/lob plays. From my perspective, I enjoy both types of tennis because they're so completely different and involve different skills, yet they're packed so close together in the calendar. Not that that's a good thing, of course.

Aesthetically I think white and green are a good mixture, although female fans have complained in the past that the white shirts don't bring out the sexiness enough.

Scotso
05-22-2005, 08:07 PM
LOL, wishful thinking. By the semis he''ll be very motivated.

Idiot. :)

JCF
05-22-2005, 08:08 PM
Yes, it is to an extent - in the same way RG is about long rallies to an extent, but you still see plenty of baseline rallies on grass (nowadays, anyway) and plenty of net points at RG, often through dropshot/lob plays. From my perspective, I enjoy both types of tennis because they're so completely different and involve different skills, yet they're packed so close together in the calendar. Not that that's a good thing, of course.

Aesthetically I think white and green are a good mixture, although female fans have complained in the past that they don't bring out the sexiness enough.
Well i guess you are right :)

But i have always preferred tennis on clay, grass court tennis just doesn't interest me as much. Its probably because you never quite know on clay.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 08:10 PM
Fair enough. But try following Henman at Wimbledon for the best part of a decade, as I have, and tell me that on grass you always know.

Skyward
05-22-2005, 08:10 PM
Totally removed from context and void of any original meaning I suppose you could call his quote "wishful thinking". Take the time to read what he quoted and consider his reponse in relation to that if you wish you make sense of what he was actually saying.

There is LOL- in the beginning of the post. Clear now?

Scotso
05-22-2005, 08:14 PM
Sjengster, when was Sjeng's withdrawal announced? I can't find anything about it - just noticed that he was replaced.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 08:16 PM
I'm not sure either, I only found out when I checked the OOP on the RG website a couple of hours ago. It's an achilles tendon injury, I've heard - I think Schalken is trying to set a record for number of pre-tournament withdrawals this year. But hey, at least you got one of your faves into the draw because of it.

JCF
05-22-2005, 08:17 PM
Fair enough. But try following Henman at Wimbledon for the best part of a decade, as I have, and tell me that on grass you always know.
Well yeah, I know his matches drag on and that, but we all knew it would be a Federer-Roddick final at Wimbledon last year, it was pretty much guaranteed (only threat: Hewitt). I jsut think there is that little bit more unpredictable happening at RG and the long 5 setters that go on for 4 hours. Just my opinion.

Dirk
05-22-2005, 08:18 PM
Roger will do his best at RG. He knows he has to win it or he will be pegged with criticism for the rest of his career. I don't believe for a minute that Roger growing up on clay as a kid didn't fantasize about winning RG. He will do what he can this year and the year after and so on.

Sjengster
05-22-2005, 08:20 PM
There was every chance Henman could have taken down Roddick in the semis, considering his winning record against him and the fact that his game is more suited to grass. And hey, even Ancic got unlucky with the rain delays in that SF match. I don't dispute that RG is the more unpredictable of the two tournaments, but it always helps when your favourite players are the ones more likely to be around in the second week... as is the case with me when it comes to Wimbledon.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 08:22 PM
Well yeah, I know his matches drag on and that, but we all knew it would be a Federer-Roddick final at Wimbledon last year, it was pretty much guaranteed (only threat: Hewitt). I jsut think there is that little bit more unpredictable happening at RG and the long 5 setters that go on for 4 hours. Just my opinion.
I would also agree there is more unpredictability at RG, and I guess the historical evidence about winners/finalists points to it as well.

It is then just a matter of taste whether someone likes longer matches, a slower tempo and with long rallies and a clever shot at the end, or possibly faster matches with a faster tempo, and relatively more attacking than defense. Certainly the latter is my choice

RodLo
05-22-2005, 08:30 PM
Okay, here's my question. As great as it would be to win Wimbledon over and over again, wouldn't you love to end your career saying you won at least one time in each GS? IMO, if I were to win Wimbledon X times, the US Open Y times, the Australian Open Z times, and never have won the French Open, I would be totally annoyed over that.

But whatever...:rolleyes: I still thinks it's all a load of :bs:.

JCF
05-22-2005, 08:36 PM
Okay, here's my question. As great as it would be to win Wimbledon over and over again, wouldn't you love to end your career saying you won at least one time in each GS? IMO, if I were to win Wimbledon X times, the US Open Y times, the Australian Open Z times, and never have won the French Open, I would be totally annoyed over that.

Yeah and there would always be the question mark over your career, even if you won each other slam 6 times.

Of course Federer is interested, but he should really think a slam is a slam and how many you win defines your greatness, rather than picking one over another.

mitalidas
05-22-2005, 08:37 PM
Okay, here's my question. As great as it would be to win Wimbledon over and over again, wouldn't you love to end your career saying you won at least one time in each GS?
I would.
But the question was posed to Federer. And his preferences are such that it is less important to him to win the FO than to win Wimbledon repeatedly.


But whatever...:rolleyes: I still thinks it's all a load of :bs:


Professional sports players have their own history and own emotional attachments to specific tournaments that we as laypeople cannot hope to understand. He has spoken about how he sees it
Whether anyone else sees it as BS or not is irrelevant to the answer he gave to the question he was asked

Skyward
05-22-2005, 08:38 PM
Idiot. :)

That's your intelligence in full display. :)

Marine
05-22-2005, 08:45 PM
I hope this quote is wrong, because it's stupid.
Well, Wimbledon is the most prestigious grand slam for the English, Americans, Australians etc..not for the French and the other latin players, sorry.

Skyward
05-22-2005, 09:05 PM
http://montecarlo.masters-series.com/1005/players/interviews/05_federer2.asp

Q. Greg was saying that for you to win the French Open , you may have to sacrifice Wimbledon , keep some in your reserve for the French Open and not concentrate so much on Wimbledon . What do you think about that?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, it's his opinion. I'm not sure quite what exactly he means.

But if you win the French , you know, and you feel great on grass, I don't see the point why you should leave the French after the first week and start preparing on grass. It's just a week more there.

Maybe you are a little bit more exhausted coming to Wimbledon , but the last three years I haven't had that problem for Wimbledon . I arrived on the grass disappointed because of my losses at the French . So I hope that's going to change, so arrive on the grass actually with a great feeling. That hasn't happened.

But, no, I don't quite get the point.

Q. I think the point he was trying to make, if you were to win the French , for you then to win Wimbledon , it would be better for you, for everyone, to have a bit more time between the events.

ROGER FEDERER: Oh, yeah. Well, it's the same here. It's the same in Miami and Monte‑Carlo ; they're very close to each other, they're different surfaces. This one is even different continents.

Of course if you play well at the French ‑ doesn't mean necessarily win it ‑ but of course the time is short for Wimbledon . But I still believe, you know, you've got one and a half weeks, one week at least, you know, so that should be enough because hardly anybody can practice more than that on grass anyways

WyveN
05-22-2005, 11:30 PM
All Federer is saying is that Wimbledon will always be his #1 priority for the season. Its hardly a shocking statement however he could have said it in a far more diplomatic manner.

vogus
05-23-2005, 12:09 AM
Of course it does.. Only obvious trolls would deny it.


the obvious troll in this case is you. Roland Garros kicks the shit out of Wimbledon.

lucashg
05-23-2005, 12:22 AM
All Federer is saying is that Wimbledon will always be his #1 priority for the season. Its hardly a shocking statement however he could have said it in a far more diplomatic manner.


I agree. It just sounds to me the same as it did when he made that comment about playing Agassi at the Australian Open. Journalists just don't have the timing to know their questions aren't exactly welcome.

Well, the previous post by Skyward sums up that Federer won't sacrifice Roland Garros to the benefit of doing well at Wimbledon. In fact, he believes that winning RG will actually be better for his campaign at Wimbledon [he's won back-to-back titles on different surfaces with little or non-existant rest in between, so that must be quite obvious for him]. He has also said in recent interviews for websites and journals much more reliable than british tabloids that he would love to win the French Open and he is certainly looking for his "love-affair" in Paris. Players tend to like tournaments where they do fine, and Federer is one of the few that loves to say every single tournament is important for him, whether it's a International Series or a Grand Slam so to say he doesn't care about RG is completely untrue, mean and stupid to say.

He loves Wimbledon above all tournaments for his own reasons, and although I find bizarre this statement of prefering to win a 11th Wimbledon instead of a 1st Roland Garros, that's up to him to decide. That doesn't point out how much importance and "heart" he gives into other tournaments. He wants to do well in slam, why not?

As far as his career of now, a career grand slam is far more impressive than a triple-crown in Wimbledon IMO. I'm sure looking for a career Grand Slam, Roland Garros/Wimbledon back-to-back and Wimbledon Triple Crown to happen as soon as possible.

bad gambler
05-23-2005, 01:56 AM
well said federer :p

Five
05-23-2005, 02:01 AM
oh well
he said this 'cause he knows he'll never win RG :)

WyveN
05-23-2005, 02:08 AM
oh well
he said this 'cause he knows he'll never win RG :)

No he didnt and if he ever wins RG its not going to stop Wimbledon from being his favourite slam and the one that is his #1 goal to win every year.

Lendl made it a obsession of winning the only slam to elude him late in his career and it affected his game on surfaces that suited his game more.

WyveN
05-23-2005, 02:13 AM
If he really said this it means he don't give a shit to win all Grand Slams, so Agassi will ever be the better player.

So if Federer wins the FO this year he automatically has a better career then the likes of Borg/Sampras? Absurd.

alfonsojose
05-23-2005, 02:35 AM
:awww: Clay reminds him Crucifixion. Leave JesusFed alone :hug:

Lady
05-23-2005, 05:51 AM
http://montecarlo.masters-series.com/1005/players/interviews/05_federer2.asp

Q. Greg was saying that for you to win the French Open , you may have to sacrifice Wimbledon , keep some in your reserve for the French Open and not concentrate so much on Wimbledon . What do you think about that?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I mean, it's his opinion. I'm not sure quite what exactly he means.

But if you win the French , you know, and you feel great on grass, I don't see the point why you should leave the French after the first week and start preparing on grass. It's just a week more there.

Maybe you are a little bit more exhausted coming to Wimbledon , but the last three years I haven't had that problem for Wimbledon . I arrived on the grass disappointed because of my losses at the French . So I hope that's going to change, so arrive on the grass actually with a great feeling. That hasn't happened.

But, no, I don't quite get the point.

Q. I think the point he was trying to make, if you were to win the French , for you then to win Wimbledon , it would be better for you, for everyone, to have a bit more time between the events.

ROGER FEDERER: Oh, yeah. Well, it's the same here. It's the same in Miami and Monte‑Carlo ; they're very close to each other, they're different surfaces. This one is even different continents.

Of course if you play well at the French ‑ doesn't mean necessarily win it ‑ but of course the time is short for Wimbledon . But I still believe, you know, you've got one and a half weeks, one week at least, you know, so that should be enough because hardly anybody can practice more than that on grass anyways

Now that sounds more like Roger! ;)

Puschkin
05-23-2005, 05:57 AM
All articles and (transcribed) interviews have to be treated with great caution. I remember that Roger was once shortened to " I know how good I am" when what he actually had said (originally in German) was: "I know I can play well on clay".

To me this is not necessarily the same ;)

Rogiman
05-23-2005, 10:45 AM
If he wins the French I won't mind him not playing for the rest of the year and losing his #1 spot.

I would also give up any future Wimbledon titles for one RG title.

This one would be a true evidence of his force and would eclipse anything he has ever achieved.

One Roland Garros title is my biggest wish as a fan of his.

Corey Feldman
05-23-2005, 01:46 PM
Saying one slam is better than another is just a lack of respect, but why am i surprised, Federer can really make some arrogant comments to make himself look good.

If he really wants to be considered the greatest ever, I suggest he gets it together and wins at least 2 RG titles, and a RG-Wimby back to back as well.
even if roger said this.. good for him..
its not like great clay courters over the years think the same about Wimbledon (costa, corretja, muster, bruguera, gaudio etc.. ) half of them didnt even show up for wimbledon most of the time, thats even more disrespectful .

TheMightyFed
05-23-2005, 02:24 PM
I'm surprised by Fed, it's a bit stupid to say that at this time of the season... anyway, RG would survive without Fed like it survived without Sampras...
I think he just wanted to put off some pressure with a very awkward sentence.
Many legendary matches have been played in RG and this tournament is really part of the legend of tennis...

tennischick
05-23-2005, 02:26 PM
If he wins the French I won't mind him not playing for the rest of the year and losing his #1 spot.

I would also give up any future Wimbledon titles for one RG title.

This one would be a true evidence of his force and would eclipse anything he has ever achieved.

One Roland Garros title is my biggest wish as a fan of his.
i wouldn't go that far but i do want him to win RG. and his chances this year are as good as any (barring the feet).

ys
05-23-2005, 03:19 PM
From Roger's interview on ESPN .. - "The surface at RG is more slippery ( then in Hamburg ), and, actually, it should help me against all those claycourters".. :lol:

Auscon
05-23-2005, 03:19 PM
from the top RG website newsbulletin

Federer "Once I win a set 6-1, I'm not going to lose a match"

Thats definitely one of the coolest things ive heard (well, read) Fed say :)

Corey Feldman
05-23-2005, 03:27 PM
from the top RG website newsbulletin

Federer "Once I win a set 6-1, I'm not going to lose a match"

Thats definitely one of the coolest things ive heard (well, read) Fed say :)
didnt work for him when he played Hrbaty in Cincinnati last year :o

Skyward
05-23-2005, 03:29 PM
Hrbaty said that Roger couldn't beat him even in practice matches. :o

SanTaureau Fan
05-23-2005, 03:39 PM
didnt work for him when he played Hrbaty in Cincinnati last year :o

:tape:

Each set of tennis is independant... Saying you can't lose a match after winning one set 6-1 makes as much sense as saying you can't lose a match after winning one set 6-3 or 6-4.

I'm not sure I'll be bothered to read anymore what Fed has to say, his brillance is on the court, not in interviews, obviously.

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 03:48 PM
Er, please check your sources. Did he say "I should not lose the match after winning the set 6-1" or "I cannot lose.... "

People who take journalists verbatim should get a reality check first

SanTaureau Fan
05-23-2005, 03:50 PM
"Once I win a set 6-1, I'm not going to lose a match."

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 03:51 PM
"Once I win a set 6-1, I'm not going to lose a match."

do you hear it on audio
or do you read it transcribed?

SanTaureau Fan
05-23-2005, 03:53 PM
I'm not going to hire a private investigator to see if Federer really said it or not. If he didn't and it's a journalist fabulation, then my comment doesn't apply.

Auscon
05-23-2005, 03:56 PM
Er, please check your sources. Did he say "I should not lose the match after winning the set 6-1" or "I cannot lose.... "

People who take journalists verbatim should get a reality check first

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2005-05-23/200505231116856664063.html

I wasnt aware I had to go and read all the interviews before I quote anything put in the current news bulletin on the main page of the RG site

Interviews which, by the way, are not available yet on the site

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 03:56 PM
I'm not going to hire a private investigator to see if Federer really said it or not. If he didn't and it's a journalist fabulation, then my comment doesn't apply.

Thanks, I would personally greatly appreciate learning more about this. :) There are three scenarios I imagine:
One, he did not say that but said something related.
Two, he said that but in a context which has been removed (e.g., "I have told myself since Cincinnati 2004 that ...... once I win a set 6-1, I'm not going to lose a match")
Three, he said it. Which some would construe as honesty, but I would take as an overconfident remark.

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:01 PM
http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/articles/2005-05-23/200505231116856664063.html

I wasnt aware I had to go and read all the interviews before I quote anything put in the current news bulletin on the main page of the RG site

Interviews which, by the way, are not available yet on the site

right, that's what san taura and I are discussing. Whether its on audio or its transcribed, taken out of context, taken out of a larger sentence, or an overconfident remark which is repeated verbatim

Perhaps you are not aware, but journalists do this routinely to get catchy headlines

Skyward
05-23-2005, 04:06 PM
Since 2000 he's lost 3 times while winning 6-1 in one of the sets.

2000 - to Ferrero
2003- Novak on clay( last final he lost)
2004- Hrbaty

tennischick
05-23-2005, 04:06 PM
the journalist succeeded -- he got us talking about it. that's a beat seller in the world of journalism. he's probably logging on every 5 seconds to see how far this thread will go. ;)

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:12 PM
supposing that statement was in swiss-German, part of a bigger statement with a different context and the transcriber was french-speaking, Roger might just have said ".... Tony told me that there was once this guy who was so confident he said 'Once I win a set 6-1, I will not lose the match', and I thought that was such a corny thing to say...."

Auscon
05-23-2005, 04:12 PM
right, that's what san taura and I are discussing. Whether its on audio or its transcribed, taken out of context, taken out of a larger sentence, or an overconfident remark which is repeated verbatim

Perhaps you are not aware, but journalists do this routinely to get catchy headlines

so in other words you're saying

"Perhaps you are not aware, but you must be stupid"

Which you would have to be to take everything that is reported in an article as the word for word truth

incase you didnt read what I said, I didnt show the quote and give Federer shit, I posted the quote because I thought it was a bloody cool thing for Fed to say

SanTaureau Fan
05-23-2005, 04:14 PM
Or maybe he said: "Once I win a set 6-1, I will not lose the match, the same could be said if I win a set 6-0 or 6-2. Because I'm like, so much better than those talentless scrubs who shouldn't bother to try to beat me, unless I'm injured."

Auscon
05-23-2005, 04:15 PM
the interview is up, but not a transcript....its in streaming vid form

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/interviews/2005-05-23/200505231116864232629.html

tennischick
05-23-2005, 04:16 PM
Or maybe he said: "Once I win a set 6-1, I will not lose the match, the same could be said if I win a set 6-0 or 6-2. Because I'm like, so much better than those talentless scrubs who shouldn't bother to try to beat me, unless I'm injured."
i can live with this. JesusFed is the greatest. he can walk on water :worship: :worship:

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:19 PM
Or maybe he said: "Once I win a set 6-1, I will not lose the match, the same could be said if I win a set 6-0 or 6-2. Because I'm like, so much better than those talentless scrubs who shouldn't bother to try to beat me, unless I'm injured."

that to me, would be an utterly overconfident remark
I know there are many Roger fans out there who will like it, say he's just being honest (maybe it is), but I would not like to hear it

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:21 PM
so in other words you're saying

"Perhaps you are not aware, but you must be stupid"



see now, you're doing exactly the journalist thing :lol:

Why try to read between my lines? Exactly what I said is written there. There is no mention of anyone's stupidity :D

Skyward
05-23-2005, 04:25 PM
Ok, the right quote is " Once I win usually a set 6‑1, I'm not going to lose a match." Considering he's lost only 3 times since 2000, he's not that far off.

Auscon
05-23-2005, 04:27 PM
see now, you're doing exactly the journalist thing :lol:

Why try to read between my lines? Exactly what I said is written there. There is no mention of anyone's stupidity :D

See, now like some people I read further into comments I initially dont like

As with the Fed quote, I liked it thus I felt no reason to investigate it

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:28 PM
Ok, the right quote is " Once I win usually a set 6‑1, I'm not going to lose a match." Considering he's lost only 3 times since 2000, he's not that far off.

The inclusion of "USUALLY" tones down any aggression or overconfidence in that statement. It's fine. It is not "If I win 6-1, I will not lose a match"

A charitable interpretation is that Roger likes to tell the facts ;)

Cool :cool:
Thanks Sky

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:30 PM
See, now like some people I read further into comments I initially dont like

As with the Fed quote, I liked it thus I felt no reason to investigate it
okay relax
Give me a break --- I'm a Roger fan, I obviously want to be sure that any hyperconfident remarks from him, especially those which put him in a bad light, are accurate

The press has done this routinely with the top players. They are probably trying to sell papers, incite some bad feelings towards him, incite a rivalry, get the crowd worked up whatever

If I don't see it live or hear it live,a nd the comment is atypical of a player, then I dont take it at face value

There was no bad feelings towards you.... In fact, I am grateful you brought it to the attention of the thread

Auscon
05-23-2005, 04:31 PM
The quote is still cool with the 'usually', but not as cool.....not as assertive :)

tennischick
05-23-2005, 04:32 PM
that to me, would be an utterly overconfident remark
I know there are many Roger fans out there who will like it, say he's just being honest (maybe it is), but I would not like to hear it
but Roger never said this -- i was responding sarcastically to San Taureau Fan's exaggerated interpretation. and i'm saying fine, if you wanna go there, well then Roger can walk on water too.

Auscon
05-23-2005, 04:34 PM
okay relax
Give me a break --- I'm a Roger fan, I obviously want to be sure that any hyperconfident remarks from him, especially those which put him in a bad light, are accurate

The press has done this routinely with the top players. They are probably trying to sell papers, incite some bad feelings towards him, incite a rivalry, get the crowd worked up whatever

If I don't see it live or hear it live,a nd the comment is atypical of a player, then I dont take it at face value

There was no bad feelings towards you.... In fact, I am grateful you brought it to the attention of the thread

no worries mitalidas

I guess I dont read enough of the press to have noticed any trying to put him in any sort of bad light at all........anything thats put in our main papers here, I've read, and so far it's all been absolutely 100% positive stuff about Roger

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:34 PM
but Roger never said this -- i was responding sarcastically to San Taureau Fan's exaggerated interpretation. and i'm saying fine, if you wanna go there, well then Roger can walk on water too.

yeah, he was definitely closer to the "out of context" than to the hyperconfident exaggeration suggested
There is such a fine line betwee being coolly confident and being overconfident, it is really difficult to know without seeing and hearing the player
Roger's comments at the AO about agassi sounded/looked much more humble than the written word came across in the papers

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:36 PM
no worries mitalidas

I guess I dont read enough of the press to have noticed any trying to put him in any sort of bad light at all........anything thats put in our main papers here, I've read, and so far it's all been absolutely 100% positive stuff about Roger

seeing as you are from Down Under, you have probably seen this as well.
Now this piece, I hope was 100% verbatim. :)

"I think Roger is still the guy to beat" : Lleyton about the FO

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,15371158-23216,00.html

tennischick
05-23-2005, 04:37 PM
yeah, he was definitely closer to the "out of context" than to the hyperconfident exaggeration suggested
There is such a fine line betwee being coolly confident and being overconfident, it is really difficult to know without seeing and hearing the player
Roger's comments at the AO about agassi sounded/looked much more humble than the written word came across in the papers
but Roger IS confident. and there is NOTHING wrong with that. you don't get to #1 by way of false humility. how folks choose to interpret his confident statements is a whole other issue and they're perfectly entitled to their opinions. but when you have to exaggerate what Roger said just to make your point, well that is beyond pathetic and just not worth my taking seriously.

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 04:41 PM
but Roger IS confident. and there is NOTHING wrong with that. you don't get to #1 by way of false humility. how folks choose to interpret his confident statements is a whole other issue and they're perfectly entitled to their opinions. but when you have to exaggerate what Roger said just to make your point, well that is beyond pathetic and just not worth my taking seriously.

I agree, and I'm so happy, that he has all the confidence. Lord knows he has earned it
I misspoke somewhat. I guess, I meant there is a fineline between being confident and speaking your mind and being confident and knowing when to hold back what's on your mind
Possibly he privately thinks "Oh tomorrow I play the Duck. I can sleep well tonight, that guy has no weapons to beat me"
But I would hope he wouldn't say that out loud in a conference --no matter that its the truth ;)

lsy
05-23-2005, 04:41 PM
:tape:

Each set of tennis is independant... Saying you can't lose a match after winning one set 6-1 makes as much sense as saying you can't lose a match after winning one set 6-3 or 6-4.

I'm not sure I'll be bothered to read anymore what Fed has to say, his brillance is on the court, not in interviews, obviously.

Below is the exact Q&A. Really don't see what's the problem with what he said here.

==================================================

Q. When you're trailing down a service break in the second set, do you ever whim‑whams, bad moments, saying, "I've lost here in the first round before, what's going on?" Are you beyond that sort of thing?

ROGER FEDERER: No, because I won the first set 6‑1, you feel good. Once I win usually a set 6‑1, I'm not going to lose a match. But it's true, you know, when I'm down a break in the second, he's looking like he's going to next game as well, it makes you wonder sometimes.

But I reacted just in time to not let that influence me too much.

Auscon
05-23-2005, 04:42 PM
seeing as you are from Down Under, you have probably seen this as well.
Now this piece, I hope was 100% verbatim. :)

"I think Roger is still the guy to beat" : Lleyton about the FO

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,15371158-23216,00.html

Thanks for the article, I hadnt seen it yet

Pretty sure it would be, Lleyton never has anything but good things to say about Roger....anyone who's been soundly thumped for the past year by him and who doesnt want to look like a sore loser would do the same

The only comment of Lleytons that put me out of place was this one about Nadal;

"He's obviously got a big game, but I'm not sure how far he's actually gone in a major," Hewitt said."

So even with their big matchup at the AO, he doesnt know Nadals best result in a GS? lol

tennischick
05-23-2005, 04:43 PM
I agree, and I'm so happy, that he has all the confidence. Lord knows he has earned it
I misspoke somewhat. I guess, I meant there is a fineline between being confident and speaking your mind and being confident and knowing when to hold back what's on your mind
Possibly he privately thinks "Oh tomorrow I play the Duck. I can sleep well tonight, that guy has no weapons to beat me"
But I would hope he wouldn't say that out loud in a conference --no matter that its the truth ;)
you're right -- he shouldn't call him Duck in public :p

seriously, everyone sounds bad taken out of context. even the Queen and she's got a whole staff working overtime to make sure she doesn't. and when you hear someone say something in a particular tone of voice with a particular attitude -- and then you read the same thing in print -- it can be like night and day. i get this.

the cat
05-23-2005, 04:52 PM
TC dahlin, Borg, Wilander and Edberg got to #1 with great humility. :angel: ;)

And as far as I'm concerend it's good Federer is starting to speak his mind. I like that. But sometimes his comments could cause a stir even without his intending to do so. Which is what happened with his recent French Open comments.

tennischick
05-23-2005, 05:03 PM
TC dahlin, Borg, Wilander and Edberg got to #1 with great humility. :angel: ;)
yes but their humility was real. i was referring to humility of the false kind. :p

altho' i'm not sure about Wilander. during Davis Cup he seemed more interested in making sure the cameras caught his profile than in pumping his guys up. ;)

the cat
05-23-2005, 05:08 PM
Okay I understand about your false humility point. But I don't think Federer has false humility.

And shame on you TC for thinking that about Mats. :mad: ;) LOL! Remember is viche fist pump that Lleyton Hewitt has adopted?

SanTaureau Fan
05-23-2005, 05:14 PM
Below is the exact Q&A. Really don't see what's the problem with what he said here.

==================================================

Q. When you're trailing down a service break in the second set, do you ever whim‑whams, bad moments, saying, "I've lost here in the first round before, what's going on?" Are you beyond that sort of thing?

ROGER FEDERER: No, because I won the first set 6‑1, you feel good. Once I win usually a set 6‑1, I'm not going to lose a match. But it's true, you know, when I'm down a break in the second, he's looking like he's going to next game as well, it makes you wonder sometimes.

But I reacted just in time to not let that influence me too much.

There wasn't the word "usually" in the article, so Federer was wrongly quoted. Blame the journalist!

And obviously, I was kidding when I did an "exaggerated interpretation" of the context in which in the quote was said.

tennischick
05-23-2005, 05:22 PM
Okay I understand about your false humility point. But I don't think Federer has false humility.

And shame on you TC for thinking that about Mats. :mad: ;) LOL! Remember is viche fist pump that Lleyton Hewitt has adopted?
i agree that Federer does not have false humility. that was my point. keep up :p

no-one who does the vicht can ever called humble. ;)

tennischick
05-23-2005, 05:23 PM
There wasn't the word "usually" in the article, so Federer was wrongly quoted. Blame the journalist!

And obviously, I was kidding when I did an "exaggerated interpretation" of the context in which in the quote was said.
throw in a couple of smilies next time so we'll be clear on this.

the cat
05-23-2005, 05:32 PM
I'll try to keep up TC. ;) And oops I spelled Vicht wrong. :p

Auscon
05-23-2005, 05:40 PM
throw in a couple of smilies next time so we'll be clear on this.

lol I hate how the smiley has become a necessity to clarify sarcasm on the net :)

but that smiley didnt mean that was a sarcastic comment....it was a neutral non sarcasm illustrating smiley

SanTaureau Fan
05-23-2005, 05:41 PM
throw in a couple of smilies next time so we'll be clear on this.

No. It was obvious. If people don't get it, it's even more funny.

mitalidas
05-23-2005, 06:00 PM
lol I hate how the smiley has become a necessity to clarify sarcasm on the net :)

but that smiley didnt mean that was a sarcastic comment....it was a neutral non sarcasm illustrating smiley

see.... its just like reading Federer's comments about being invincible when up 6-1, versus watching it on video with his own real-life smiley to understand the context

:) :D :rolleyes: :cool: :confused: :wavey: :D :mad: :sad: :worship: :( :p

KarstenBraasch#1
05-23-2005, 06:02 PM
Go Roger! Wimbledon is 100 times more important than Roland Garros! Just ask Boris! Or Ivan.

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 05:58 AM
yes but their humility was real. i was referring to humility of the false kind. :p

altho' i'm not sure about Wilander. during Davis Cup he seemed more interested in making sure the cameras caught his profile than in pumping his guys up. ;)

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 06:01 AM
TC dahlin, Borg, Wilander and Edberg got to #1 with great humility. :angel: ;)

Too bad you don't understand or speak Swedish then it'd be interesting as to whether you'd say that.

And as far as I'm concerend it's good Federer is starting to speak his mind. I like that. But sometimes his comments could cause a stir even without his intending to do so. Which is what happened with his recent French Open comments.

Federer is fine in this regard and there are always people looking to catch upon anything in the slightest to paint Federer in a negative light. The thing if he says nothing, then he has no personality or any views, then if he does, he is arrogant.

chris whiteside
05-24-2005, 06:23 AM
Of course Wimbledon remains the top tournament and I believe despite the claims of some players if they were all "granted" one GS victory in their career that is the one almost all of them would choose.

But to pefer a 10th or 11th Wimby over just one RG? That's plain nuts. The victory at RG would round a career out and show what a class all-round player he was.

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 07:24 AM
Of course Wimbledon remains the top tournament and I believe despite the claims of some players if they were all "granted" one GS victory in their career that is the one almost all of them would choose.


Isn't that just an ethnocentric view coming from someone who is from the English-speaking world thinking that? Not every player thinks that Wimbledon is the top and for some RG is the one that they want and it's not some claims from players unless ones from Spain and South America don't count.

Chloe le Bopper
05-24-2005, 08:03 AM
GWH -I haven't bothered debating this matter since the last time somebody tried to convince me that the players who insist they'd rather win RG "don't really mean it". Frankly, there is no use debating with people like that. They don't use evidence, they use their own bias to come to a decision. You can't debate with that, it's like debating with a brick wall.

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 08:12 AM
GWH -I haven't bothered debating this matter since the last time somebody tried to convince me that the players who insist they'd rather win RG "don't really mean it". Frankly, there is no use debating with people like that. They don't use evidence, they use their own bias to come to a decision. You can't debate with that, it's like debating with a brick wall.

Yes, just needed to get that off my chest, there is only so much policy readings one can do in a day. :)

Actually the Wilander fake humility is one that made me laugh as much as the ys propaganda.

Chloe le Bopper
05-24-2005, 08:23 AM
I haven't read most of the thread. I just read the first article and thought "old news" and said as much ;) Federer has long made it clear that Wimbledon is THE tournament for him, and that's super. Seeing as it's the one he's going to win the most, it's good that he feels that way. And no, that was not a backhanded compliment.

I missed the Wilander comment.

KarstenBraasch#1
05-24-2005, 08:23 AM
Those who would rather win RG would never have a chance at Wimbledon anyway. :)

Chloe le Bopper
05-24-2005, 08:27 AM
Those who would rather win RG would never have a chance at Wimbledon anyway. :)
And I'm sure the same can be said about many who would rather win Wimbledon. But hey, let's not bother being consistent here. That would be highly inappropriate.

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 08:30 AM
Those who would rather win RG would never have a chance at Wimbledon anyway. :)

And this doesn't work vice-versa.

KarstenBraasch#1
05-24-2005, 08:32 AM
And I'm sure the same can be said about many who would rather win Wimbledon. But hey, let's not bother being consistent here. That would be highly inappropriate.
Nothing wrong with being consistent IMO. But I can't see any inconsistencies in my post, since I wasn't referring to players rather waniting to win in Wimbledon at all. Therefore, your comment doesn't apply to my post. :)

KarstenBraasch#1
05-24-2005, 08:33 AM
And this doesn't work vice-versa.
As I said, I haven't thought that far. :)

Boris tried at least in contrast to those who wimp out of Wimbledon year after year.

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 08:35 AM
As I said, I haven't thought that far. :)

Boris tried at least in contrast to those who wimp out of Wimbledon year after year.

You're always thinking, so don't try that on me. :p

So what does Becker have to do with it?

Chloe le Bopper
05-24-2005, 08:36 AM
As I said, I haven't thought that far. :)

Boris tried at least in contrast to those who wimp out of Wimbledon year after year.
Of whom do you speak? :)

KarstenBraasch#1
05-24-2005, 08:38 AM
Simple. Boris' opinion is more important than others' because his tryings at RG despite failure confirm his high moral values.

KarstenBraasch#1
05-24-2005, 08:39 AM
Of whom do you speak? :)
Not Ferrero. Happy now? :)

Action Jackson
05-24-2005, 08:40 AM
Simple. Boris' opinion is more important than others' because his tryings at RG despite failure confirm his high moral values.

Hehehe.

Chloe le Bopper
05-24-2005, 08:43 AM
Not Ferrero. Happy now? :)
No. You didn't answer the question :p

Chloe le Bopper
05-24-2005, 08:44 AM
Simple. Boris' opinion is more important than others' because his tryings at RG despite failure confirm his high moral values.
:haha:

Boris :hearts:

KarstenBraasch#1
05-24-2005, 08:46 AM
No. You didn't answer the question :p
True, but not without a reason.

budz
05-24-2005, 10:42 AM
Those who would rather win RG would never have a chance at Wimbledon anyway. :)
Im not sure about that. I think Nadal might be a chance in good time. Especially if there is a year that the draw opens up a bit.

ys
06-01-2005, 08:04 PM
From yesterday's interview:

Federer "But I would love to have the same results ( as Sampras ), even without Roland Garros (smiling)"

Surely, with 7 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens one hardly needs a Roland Garros to be the greatest ever..

Clara Bow
06-01-2005, 08:33 PM
Well, if he doesn't really want it can Rafa have it? ;)

GoranIvanisevic546346
06-01-2005, 08:50 PM
I totally agree with Roger, Roland Garros is for one-dimensional players, while in Wimbledon you can`t play just from baseline.

oneandonlyhsn
06-01-2005, 08:57 PM
I totally agree with Roger, Roland Garros is for one-dimensional players, while in Wimbledon you can`t play just from baseline.

Ouch.
I love Wimbledon and I think it is the most prestigous GS. Look at Myskina, Svetlana, and Sharapova, you wouldnt know that the other 2 won GS from the international fame that comes with winning Wimbledon. And I am not talking about American pimpimg of Sharapova, she has fans in all over Asia and other continents and bleh bleh. Not that it matters, but Wimbledon to most players and people has that little something extra.

Adman
06-01-2005, 08:59 PM
Overall Wimbledon is the best Slam by far

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. Australian Open
4. Roland Gaross (French Open)

ys
06-01-2005, 09:29 PM
Oh my, oh my.. These boards are being invaded by sane people.. :eek:

Still, I might disagree about putting AO above RG.. RG is still one of Big Three, even though the claycourt specialists did a lot to tarnish RG's reputation lately by their inability to do any damage in other Slams..

Skyward
06-01-2005, 09:31 PM
Ouch.
I love Wimbledon and I think it is the most prestigous GS. Look at Myskina, Svetlana, and Sharapova, you wouldnt know that the other 2 won GS from the international fame that comes with winning Wimbledon.

I suspect Kuznetsova's "popularity" would be on the same level even if she won Wimbledon.

mitalidas
06-01-2005, 09:35 PM
I suspect Kuznetsova's "popularity" would be on the same level even if she won Wimbledon.
I agree
Sharapova, as much as we love to hate her (I speak of many but not all I know), is the leggy blonde with the babyface and the fiery demeanor
Even if she won the USO or FO or AO in lieu of W, her fame would be as much

Neely
06-01-2005, 09:35 PM
I suspect Kuznetsova's "popularity" would be on the same level even if she won Wimbledon.
I guess it would increase dramatically if she won Wimbledon, just not as big as Sharapova's.

ys
06-01-2005, 09:40 PM
I suspect Kuznetsova's "popularity" would be on the same level even if she won Wimbledon.

Not sure here.. US Open is also huge, easily the second biggest.. But I remember that winning Wimbledon worked wonders to make Novotna more popular.. I remember someone saying that she has gotten more of appearance fees and earned more by playing lucrative exhibitions during the year after winning W than she had in all her career before that..

Skyward
06-01-2005, 09:46 PM
Not sure here.. US Open is also huge, easily the second biggest.. But I remember that winning Wimbledon worked wonders to make Novotna more popular.. I remember someone saying that she has gotten more of appearance fees and earned more by playing lucrative exhibitions during the year after winning W than she had in all her career before that..

By the time Novotna won Wimbledon , she was a sentimental favorite for a lot of people. It took a decade of playing on the WTA and crying on the royal shoulder. The general public may eventually warm up to Kuznetsova too.

blosson
06-01-2005, 10:18 PM
From yesterday's interview:

Federer "But I would love to have the same results ( as Sampras ), even without Roland Garros (smiling)"

Surely, with 7 Wimbledons and 5 US Opens one hardly needs a Roland Garros to be the greatest ever..
:D

*Viva Chile*
06-02-2005, 01:39 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2094-1622169,00.html

"If I could choose between winning Wimbledon or Roland Garros, I would always pick Wimbledon. And, looking a long time into the future, if I was to win Wimbledon 10 times but never managed to win the French Open and was then given the choice, I would pick an 11th Wimbledon title rather than a first French.”

I agree with him. How can one even compare..


I cannot believe that Roger could said that!!!!!!!! :eek:
What dissapointing Roger... :rolleyes:

ys
06-04-2005, 02:16 AM
So maybe, just maybe, Federer realises that 10 Wimbledons are indeed more realistic goal for him than 1 RG.. :lol:

Fi-Fi
06-04-2005, 02:22 AM
hahaha...that might actually be true ;)

NATAS81
06-04-2005, 02:29 AM
So maybe, just maybe, Federer realises that 10 Wimbledons are indeed more realistic goal for him than 1 RG.. :lol:
Really?

You think he is saving his energy for Wimbledon?

Come on, man. Nadal is the franchise.

Roger was simply outplayed. Roger will not defeat Nadal on clay for the next 5-10 years, however long Rafa decides to stick with tennis.

Roger, should he defeat Rafael, would have to accomplish it in 5 sets at Roland Garros.

I will be watching with anticipation at Hamburg should Federer/Nadal meet in 06. Roger's most favorable weather conditions, without a doubt.

jacobhiggins
06-04-2005, 03:09 AM
Your statement about Roger not beating Nadal for 5 -10 years on clay is ridicioulous, do you actually believe that Nata? You cannot honestly believe that and if you do, who actually agrees with Nata lol?

Skyward
06-04-2005, 03:14 AM
Your statement about Roger not beating Nadal for 5 -10 years on clay is ridicioulous, ?

Exactly.
How is it different from Makro's predictions?

ys
06-04-2005, 03:24 AM
Really?

You think he is saving his energy for Wimbledon?

Come on, man. Nadal is the franchise.

Roger was simply outplayed. Roger will not defeat Nadal on clay for the next 5-10 years, however long Rafa decides to stick with tennis.


Things change very quick.. Things sometimes take very unexpected turn. Who would have thought one year ago that Coria would not be a major factor on clay this year, and that that Slam that he almost had in his pocket might stay his lifelong dream.. Who would have thought in 2001, that 25 yo RG Tricampeon Kuerten is never going to do anything of significance on clay anymore. Things can change very fast.


Roger, should he defeat Rafael, would have to accomplish it in 5 sets at Roland Garros.

That I, kind of , agree. I thought that he was realising that too today. And the obvious lack of time to complete the five-setter might have helped to erode his determination in the fourth set. He knew,that should it be finished tomorrow, fresh legs of Nadal will beat him..

NATAS81
06-04-2005, 03:42 AM
Your statement about Roger not beating Nadal for 5 -10 years on clay is ridicioulous, do you actually believe that Nata? You cannot honestly believe that and if you do, who actually agrees with Nata lol?
When I said that, I meant the small tournaments mostly Federer would not win against Nadal and I do stand by that.

Especially at Roland Garros, Nadal will have the upper-hand, but I think Roger can get him at Hamburg and other cold weather events.

But overall on clay, it just comes down to the passion and physical fitness both of which Nadal are leading at this point in time. Rafael is incredably gifted, and on the time line has alot longer to work on his game and improve.

Roger was not nearly as young as Nadal before he defeated world #1 Roddick.

I would like to know as well who else #1's he defeated. He's beaten Hewitt 9 times I believe, a very close one-on-one between them.

But Lleyton hasn't been playing the top level tennis since 2 years ago and you wonder if he will see a grass/hardcourt victory when Ljubicic, Johansson, Nadal, Roddick, Safin, Federer are all entered in.

Now the marriage will take a toll on him, and he won't have the time to completely focus on improving his game.

Lady Natalia
06-04-2005, 03:44 AM
Now the marriage will take a toll on him, and he won't have the time to completely focus on improving his game.

Marriage? What marriage?

NATAS81
06-04-2005, 03:47 AM
Marriage? What marriage?
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=39710

Lady Natalia
06-04-2005, 03:51 AM
Oh..Hewitt. I feared you were talking about Roger.

ys
06-04-2005, 05:45 PM
Now Sharapova says about the same, that winning many more Wimbledonsand no other Slams would satisfy her..

Rogiman
06-04-2005, 06:00 PM
When I said that, I meant the small tournaments mostly Federer would not win against Nadal and I do stand by that.

Especially at Roland Garros, Nadal will have the upper-hand, but I think Roger can get him at Hamburg and other cold weather events.

But overall on clay, it just comes down to the passion and physical fitness both of which Nadal are leading at this point in time. Rafael is incredably gifted, and on the time line has alot longer to work on his game and improve.

Roger was not nearly as young as Nadal before he defeated world #1 Roddick.

I would like to know as well who else #1's he defeated. He's beaten Hewitt 9 times I believe, a very close one-on-one between them.

But Lleyton hasn't been playing the top level tennis since 2 years ago and you wonder if he will see a grass/hardcourt victory when Ljubicic, Johansson, Nadal, Roddick, Safin, Federer are all entered in.

Now the marriage will take a toll on him, and he won't have the time to completely focus on improving his game.

One of the dumbest posts I've ever read here, every inch of it...

It's all about cliche's and unfounded simplistic assumptions you've probably gathered from others' posts.
Since when is the breakthrough age of a player correlated with the player's eventual success...?
And based on what can you so confidently talk about Federer's, Nadal's and Hewitt's careers in years to come?

Rogiman
06-04-2005, 06:02 PM
Really?

Roger was simply outplayed. Roger will not defeat Nadal on clay for the next 5-10 years, however long Rafa decides to stick with tennis.


Brilliant, outstanding, you know for sure what's gonna happen for no less than 5 to 10 years :rolleyes:

The Oracle
06-07-2009, 03:16 PM
DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM HIS WIN

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

FEDERER:
GREATEST EVER

soraya
06-07-2009, 03:17 PM
Yes.

robiht
06-10-2009, 07:00 AM
It's nothing,but he cried for "the nothing" :)

theprodigy
06-10-2009, 07:28 AM
That quote was from 4 years ago when 14 grand slams was still so faraway, when he hasn't made the FO finals 3 times in a row and the whole world wasn't pressuring him to win FO like crazy. I know he loves Wimbledon so much, but I bet a million that his mind has changed through the years. His comment after his FO win prove this. (i.e., "I think that now and until the end of my career, I can really play with my mind at peace, and no longer hear that I've never won Roland Garros.")

fedexdelivers
06-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Nothing becomes something when the whole world is on your back for not winning nothing.

Also, Fed's career goals in 2005 is way different from 2009.

born_on_clay
06-10-2009, 12:16 PM
What a moron form Fedmug. How he can even said it ??????
He has no respect for FO

Dini
06-10-2009, 12:18 PM
How things changed :lol:

Matt01
06-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Let's give the RG trophy to someone else who actually appreciates it :p

;)

bokehlicious
06-10-2009, 12:20 PM
I think he didn't change his mind on the matter :shrug: he just made a point to win the clay slam to shut up and piss off the doubters/haters :)

DDrago2
06-10-2009, 12:26 PM
He didn't say this exactly, but that he personaly preffers Wimbledon much more, which is no wonder since he is a fast court specialist (and Wimbledon used to be a fast tournament back than). WHat he thinks of clay court tennis you can clearly see from how he held his RG trophy days ago... it was the only time he didn't hold it upwards

theprodigy
06-10-2009, 01:01 PM
^...maybe he just didn't know how to hold it?

thrust
06-10-2009, 01:44 PM
He likes Wimbledon more because he can win easier there. He had to play a few long hard fought matches to win the FO. Also, he was lucky not to have a fit Nadal to play in the final. Instead, he had a ONE MATCH WONDER who hardly ever gets to a semi of ANY tournament to beat. It is hard to believe that Roger could have made such a STUPID statement.

Henry Kaspar
06-10-2009, 01:49 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2094-1622169,00.html

"If I could choose between winning Wimbledon or Roland Garros, I would always pick Wimbledon. And, looking a long time into the future, if I was to win Wimbledon 10 times but never managed to win the French Open and was then given the choice, I would pick an 11th Wimbledon title rather than a first French.”

I agree with him. How can one even compare..

EDIT. Jjust swa that someone misguided me.... ;)

Arkulari
06-10-2009, 01:52 PM
Roger, shut up :o :lol:

at least we know one thing: he's no bandwagoner, 'cuz he has always preferred Wimbledon :rolls: