Will Roger win all four majors AND all nine Masters Series Events during his career? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Roger win all four majors AND all nine Masters Series Events during his career?

JennyS
03-22-2004, 03:39 PM
Do you think that Roger will win the Four Grand Slams, the Tennis Masters Cup AND all nine Masters Series events during his career?

JennyS
03-22-2004, 03:42 PM
I think he will win all four majors but not all nine Masters Series events. I think he'll win 6 or 7 of them.

faboozadoo15
03-22-2004, 09:05 PM
all

joske
03-22-2004, 09:07 PM
well.. if you're talking about his WHOLE career I'd say sure he'll win 'em all I guess..?

LCeh
03-22-2004, 09:15 PM
To be VERY safe, even if he doesn't win ALL, I am sure he can win 4 slams and 9 TMS events, which for a career is already pretty amazing.

Leo
03-23-2004, 01:00 AM
Winning all 9 TMS events would be the more difficult of the two achievements for Roger, I'd say. I'm also unconvinced he has the right stuff to win Roland Garros. He'll certainly win the US Open; the surface suits him well and, by winning IW, his U.S. hardcourt curse is over.

J. Corwin
03-23-2004, 01:01 AM
I doubt it. The 4 slams is much more probable than the 9 Masters though.

sigmagirl91
03-23-2004, 01:02 AM
I believe that he will win all four slams, maybe the majority of the 9 Masters, and an Olympic Gold Medal....

JeLuliA88
03-23-2004, 01:08 AM
He'll win all 4 majors but i doubt that he'll win all the masters thou. But if he did it would be an amazing feat.

WyveN
03-23-2004, 04:31 AM
I would say he WONT win all 9 masters but who is brave enough to nominate one he wont win?
his record in the clay ones is pretty promising

lsy
03-23-2004, 05:27 AM
wow...isn't it a bit too soon for such poll???

I can't even see past him winning RG or a master series this coming clay season, let alone to foresee his whole career. Besides it's not just what Roger can or cannot do, he's always into a match vs an opponent. I still think it's too soon to think that Roger will be the only player to watch out for at this moment.

drf716
03-23-2004, 05:47 AM
neyvair

yanchr
03-23-2004, 07:42 AM
Roger's amazing run in grabing titles these days just boosted the threads like this, which in my eyes more or less doesn't make much sense.

Anyway...
He now has 2 GS and 2 TMS respectively and also TMC in his packet, but surely the more he grabs, the tougher to get the remaining ones. As for the 4 GS, I say yes. All the TMS...I'd rather talk about it when he actually has already got 7 or 8.

Action Jackson
03-23-2004, 07:49 AM
He will win them all this year and all the players and fans might not as well turn up as it's a forgone conclusion that Roger already has his name engraved on all the trophies.

WyveN
03-23-2004, 10:15 AM
I think Ferrero is doing the right thing by withdrawing from every event......obviously with Roger int he draw it is hopeless

Dirk
03-23-2004, 10:52 AM
YEAH PREACH IT GEORGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :worship: :bounce:

vene
03-23-2004, 12:00 PM
I think Ferrero is doing the right thing by withdrawing from every event......obviously with Roger int he draw it is hopeless
:haha:
I do think he will win them all, but of course I'm biased!

sam
03-23-2004, 02:01 PM
Good question. I clicked the 2nd option.

Buddy
03-23-2004, 02:09 PM
he will win all four slams but i hope not this year cos tim has been playing good tennis and i would like him to win wimbledon for once!

User ID 4783
03-23-2004, 02:13 PM
I guess he will, but he has to play better on clay courts.

lzhaol
03-23-2004, 02:55 PM
i think he will probably miss out on the clay ones...
he was close to Rome last year n lost to Felix... may not have the same opportunity again...

Sjengster
03-23-2004, 04:13 PM
Nah, he won't win all nine TMS events - Agassi has the most in history and he never came close to winning Monte Carlo or Hamburg, and doesn't even play 'em these days. I can certainly think of one that he'll never win: Cincinnati. Comes right after Canada, and he said last year he doesn't like playing back to back Masters Series in consecutive weeks (unlike right now, where the bye system effectively gives the top players a week's break between IW and Miami).

I'd like to think he could win all the four Slams, but RG and the US Open will always be tougher for him since I don't think he likes the crowds or the atmosphere there as much as the other two; when he a) wins a set at RG, preferably three to begin with, and b) finally makes a QF at the US Open, then I will start thinking that the career Slam is a possibility. But I don't think he'll win more than five or six majors at maximum.

Nymeria
03-23-2004, 05:03 PM
I think he'll be able to win them all, but I wouldn't be sad if he didn't. It's very difficult to win all TMS events

Havok
03-23-2004, 05:27 PM
nope. he'll win the majority of them, but not every single one (TMS and GS)

tangerine_dream
03-23-2004, 05:40 PM
Roger will win everything and all titles now and forever, so all the other players may as well just retire and go putt around on the golf course or take up fingerpainting or something.

WyveN
03-23-2004, 08:58 PM
Nah, he won't win all nine TMS events - Agassi has the most in history and he never came close to winning Monte Carlo or Hamburg, and doesn't even play 'em these days. I can certainly think of one that he'll never win: Cincinnati. Comes right after Canada, and he said last year he doesn't like playing back to back Masters Series in consecutive weeks (unlike right now, where the bye system effectively gives the top players a week's break between IW and Miami).

I'd like to think he could win all the four Slams, but RG and the US Open will always be tougher for him since I don't think he likes the crowds or the atmosphere there as much as the other two; when he a) wins a set at RG, preferably three to begin with, and b) finally makes a QF at the US Open, then I will start thinking that the career Slam is a possibility. But I don't think he'll win more than five or six majors at maximum.


If he doesn't win more then 5 majors then who will?
Roddick?
Agassi will retire, Ferrero should clean up the clay ones and Nadal wont be ready for slams for another 4-5 years

Sjengster
03-23-2004, 09:05 PM
Other players - with the depth of men's tennis, I can't see any player in the modern era getting more than five or six Slams at most, and even that's hardly guaranteed. I don't think we're completely past the phase of surprise GS winners and finalists we had for the last couple of years, either. I sincerely hope Federer can get quite a few, but if he ends up with as many as Becker and Edberg it would be quite an achievement.

Shy
03-23-2004, 11:10 PM
Well Roger did win Hamburg, but I think all the others on clay might be harder.

Leo
03-24-2004, 12:45 AM
I do think Federer will win more than 5 Slams in his career. He's already got 2 and is showing no signs of slowing down, nor are any of the other players showing signs of stepping up and reaching his level. However, it is still too early to say that Roger will go on to win all Slams and Masters-Series events, especially since he hasn't proven himself at many of those tournaments.

WyveN
03-24-2004, 03:02 AM
Other players - with the depth of men's tennis, I can't see any player in the modern era getting more than five or six


what your describing is almost impossible.........that would mean over the next 5 years we would have 4-5 players with 4-5 slams. I think that is highly unlikely.
The field for the next 5 years is pretty much set, Nadal and the next generation wont be able to consistently perform for another 4-5 years.


Slams at most, and even that's hardly guaranteed. I don't think we're completely past the phase of surprise GS winners and finalists we had for the last couple of years, either.

It is not a coincidence that the surprise GS winners came during Hewitt's reign at #1. The new generation has arrived and we certainly wont be seeing the likes of verkerk, johanssons and schuettler in finals anymore, particularly on a consistent basis.


I sincerely hope Federer can get quite a few, but if he ends up with as many as Becker and Edberg it would be quite an achievement.

Yes it would be a tremendous achievement but it would be a dissapointment relative to his talent. He has the game to win 10 at least.

Shy
03-24-2004, 03:10 AM
Yes it would be a tremendous achievement but it would be a dissapointment relative to his talent. He has the game to win 10 at least.
You are for sure putting a lot of pressure on him. 10 is a lots even for the amount of talents he has.Many things can interfere with his tennis, you'll never know.

WyveN
03-24-2004, 03:13 AM
I don't think Roger cares what I think, he has his own goals.

J. Corwin
03-24-2004, 07:21 AM
Roger will never read WyveN posts anyway. ;) So it won't bother him at all.

Sjengster
03-24-2004, 03:50 PM
Good job too, think of all the pressure that would put on him... there's no magic formula for predicting men's tennis, surprise results are happening all the time and I'm sure will occur several more times at the Slams. These days to players tend to have one or two, maybe three years at most dominating the game before they get overtaken, and that will probably be the case with Federer. I would far rather he had an Agassi-like career in terms of winning every Slam at least once than a Sampras-like career (not that he'd ever be able to reach that sort of total anyway).

Dirk
03-25-2004, 04:02 AM
If Roger stays healthy he should have long legendary career which I hope is the case. I still feel for Guga's tragic mishap. :sad: I do think JC and Andy and Marat (?) along with maybe a few others are the real deal and will be around for a long time.

WyveN
03-25-2004, 12:27 PM
Good job too, think of all the pressure that would put on him


LOL, his being called the "greatest talent ever" by John Mcenroe and you think my post will put pressure on him?


... there's no magic formula for predicting men's tennis, surprise results are happening all the time and I'm sure will occur several more times at the Slams.


Last surprise result was Hewitt winning Wimbledon.


These days to players tend to have one or two, maybe three years at most dominating the game before they get overtaken, and that will probably be the case with Federer.


Can you please give an example of players that tend to get overtaken after three dominant years?
Considering Hewitt is the first 1 slam wonder to win 2 slams and Kuerten was badly injured


I would far rather he had an Agassi-like career in terms of winning every Slam at least once than a Sampras-like career (not that he'd ever be able to reach that sort of total anyway).

99.9% of fans including Roger would rather he had a Sampras-like career then a Agassi career
Roger might lose you as a fan if he starts dominating but oh well

Domino
03-25-2004, 01:11 PM
After all those Queens titles and good results at Wimbledon, I don't know why people call Hewitt's win there surprising. So he is a baseliner who likes fast surfaces. I still say Costa and Johansson bigger surprises considering they were definately not the favorites to get to the final much less win.

WyveN
03-25-2004, 01:17 PM
After all those Queens titles and good results at Wimbledon, I don't know why people call Hewitt's win there surprising.

Good results at Wimbledon? he has only made it past the 4th round once. Sampras was beatable at Queens. Henman beat Hewitt at Queens. Henman has won Queens.

The above should give you a clue. Connect the dots.

Dirk
03-25-2004, 01:25 PM
No Henman was never a champion on grass. Hewitt is great on grass for a baseliner. I think he could be a darkhorse for Wimbly.

Experimentee
03-25-2004, 02:08 PM
Hewitt winning Wimbledon wasnt really a surprise considering the draw he had (he only beat one top 20 players at the time, and that was Henman, who he owns anyway).
Agassi is my fave, but I dont know how anyone can want his career over that of Sampras. Unless you are really big on the career Slam, but still I'd prefer 14 Slams and 6 consecutive years at #1 over that.

Domino
03-25-2004, 02:12 PM
Hewitt won Queens three times and 's-Hergenbosch once. That is a pretty good grass record. He made it to R16 of Wimbledon in 2001 before losing to Escude. Before that, at 18 he made the third round in 1999 losing to Becker. He turned pro in 1998. He had 4 years at wimbledon prior to his win there, which is a pretty short career. Federer hadn't advance past the R16 in Aus Open prior to this year, do you find his win there surprising? Didn't think so.

jtipson
03-25-2004, 02:27 PM
Henman beat Hewitt at Queens. Henman has won Queens.


Neither is true (unfortunately). Tim has never beaten Lleyton at all, and frankly I'll be surprised if he ever does.

Whilst baseliners as Wimbledon champions are pretty unusual (just four times in the last 30 years), was it really such a big surprise for Hewitt to win? He was after all the dominant top player, and I certainly wouldn't write off his chances to do it again.

As for Federer, he shouldn't have any problems winning the USO at some point in the next few years. RG will obviously be harder, but I suspect he'll end up with a better record there than Pete Sampras. I don't expect him to win all the TMS (or AMS as they now seem to be called), but who knows? He's certainly got the game win all of them.

jtipson
03-25-2004, 02:31 PM
Hewitt won Queens three times and 's-Hergenbosch once. That is a pretty good grass record. He made it to R16 of Wimbledon in 2001 before losing to Escude. Before that, at 18 he made the third round in 1999 losing to Becker. He turned pro in 1998. He had 4 years at wimbledon prior to his win there, which is a pretty short career. Federer hadn't advance past the R16 in Aus Open prior to this year, do you find his win there surprising? Didn't think so.

I agree Domino. Hewitt has arguably the best grass-court record of current ATP players, even Federer (who was 4-4 at Wimbledon before he won last year).

Sjengster
03-25-2004, 04:31 PM
Well I'm terribly sorry for not agreeing with 99.9% of Federer fans - BTW, has Federer actually said he would like a Sampras-like career anywhere? Far better in my mind to achieve on all surfaces than to dominate one Slam once; that doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to stop supporting him if he has a career like Sampras (which he won't anyway, so that's rather irrelevant). And for the last time, Hewitt winning Wimbledon was not a surprise result. He's a better grass-court player than 95% of the rest of the field, and the way he was playing in 2002 would most probably have overcome his opponents even with a tougher draw at Wimbledon. But then of course I was forgetting that Hewitt was a complete fluke and that Federer should expect to win 10 Slams in the future. What perfect logic.

J. Corwin
03-25-2004, 09:42 PM
Henman beat Hewitt at Queens. Henman has won Queens.

Wrong and wrong. Henman never beat Hewitt. Also, Henman never won Queens...in fact, he doesn't have a grass court title.

WyveN
03-25-2004, 09:44 PM
Federer hadn't advance past the R16 in Aus Open prior to this year, do you find his win there surprising?

The obvious difference is that Federer is far more talented then Hewitt and Federer had a extremely hard draw on the way to his win

WyveN
03-25-2004, 09:46 PM
Neither is true (unfortunately). Tim has never beaten Lleyton at all, and frankly I'll be surprised if he ever does.


Bah just shows my lack of knowledge of Queens. I am sure there were some surprising results, perhaps Henman beating Sampras?


Whilst baseliners as Wimbledon champions are pretty unusual (just four times in the last 30 years), was it really such a big surprise for Hewitt to win? He was after all the dominant top player, and I certainly wouldn't write off his chances to do it again.


You disagree with me and thats fine but I think once Hewitt retires, looking back at his career it will be seen as a surprise win.

WyveN
03-25-2004, 09:54 PM
Well I'm terribly sorry for not agreeing with 99.9% of Federer fans - BTW, has Federer actually said he would like a Sampras-like career anywhere?


Read some of his latest interviews. He drops several hints that a second Wimbledon is sort of the main priority despite wanting to do well at the French Open as well. That is a big clue.


Far better in my mind to achieve on all surfaces than to dominate one Slam

hopefully your not referring to Sampras in the above statement


And for the last time, Hewitt winning Wimbledon was not a surprise result.


Given his draw, it certainly wasn't


He's a better grass-court player than 95% of the rest of the field, and the way he was playing in 2002 would most probably have overcome his opponents even with a tougher draw at Wimbledon.


With his tremendous play still needed 7-5 in the 5th to beat Schalken, but then you might be a bit biased about that result.

Hewitt may be a better grass court player in absolute terms then a large % of the field but with his game as soon as he is a little bit off he will be given a big challange by a lot of guys. No one underestimates him now so I am certain he will continue struggling.


But then of course I was forgetting that Hewitt was a complete fluke and that Federer should expect to win 10 Slams in the future. What perfect logic.

The brilliant thing about this argument is that it will be proven one way or the other soon.
I suspect to see you repeatedly shocked at Hewitt's "unexpected" losses.

Sjengster
03-25-2004, 11:04 PM
Indeed it will, this is a win-win situation for me given that I don't like Hewitt; if he wins another Slam (or indeed reaches another Slam semi, if we're to believe you) then your theory will fall flat on its face, if he doesn't then that's absolutely fine by me. And yes, I was referring to Sampras, and if you're about to shove a whole lot of Sampras propaganda down my throat about his underappreciated greatness and why it would be great for Federer to have a career like his, then don't bother. Like Rebecca said, the original was bad enough, why encourage a replacement?

WyveN
03-26-2004, 01:08 AM
And yes, I was referring to Sampras,

No I am not about to list Sampras's accomplishments but I do find it amusing that you chose Sampras as the one who dominated at the one slam and you would rather Roger had a more well rounded slam career like Agassi.

The ironic thing is that it is in fact Agassi who dominated at the one slam compared to his achievements at the other 3.

Sjengster
03-26-2004, 02:57 PM
True, I am aware of that, but the quantity of Agassi's AO domination is less just because he won fewer Slams overall. I don't want to denigrate Sampras' achievements, but for me, as far as Federer's career is concerned, one Wimbledon and one RG is better than half a dozen Wimbledons and no RG at all. Feel free to disagree, it's not like I have a hotwire to Federer's brain telling him that this is the way to go. He's already said in interviews that he's concentrating on winning titles in general, not specifically going after the Slams and putting pressure on himself by saying "Oh, I've got to win this one", so we'll see.

Domino
03-26-2004, 03:10 PM
Actually, Federer said his main priority for the year is to defend Wimbledon, so I think it is safe to say that he prefers a lot of Wimbledons rather than one or two with a couple of RGs.

Sjengster
03-26-2004, 03:13 PM
A title defence isn't the same as wanting to win loads of 'em; obviously he'd like to win both, but at the moment I think he knows his chances of defending Wimbledon are much higher than his chances in Paris, and a successful defence would of course keep him at no. 1. I have to hope he doesn't defend Wimbledon this year, but that's because there are others I would prefer to win...