[shiaben]

Originally Posted by Looner

How do we rate Roger's chances for 18 and 77 folks?

Not so good at the moment but he'll get his chances back up after this tournament is over and dealt with.

He got kind of unlucky with the draw but it happens to everyone once in awhile. For once Djokovic avoids having to defeat two of the finest back to back which means he'll be adequately rested when facing the finalist from Federer's half of the draw.

AN 18th slam here would be a ridiculous run by Federer and a nearly impossible feat would look something like this : Verdasco, Fish/Simon, Berdych, Murray, and then Djokovic in the finals.

[grahampros]

Originally Posted by shiaben

Not so good at the moment but he'll get his chances back up after this tournament is over and dealt with.

He got kind of unlucky with the draw but it happens to everyone once in awhile. For once Djokovic avoids having to defeat two of the finest back to back which means he'll be adequately rested when facing the finalist from Federer's half of the draw.

AN 18th slam here would be a ridiculous run by Federer and a nearly impossible feat would look something like this : Verdasco, Fish/Simon, Berdych, Murray, and then Djokovic in the finals.

I wouldn't say really not so good at the moment. He's beaten both Murray and Nole in succession at the last grand slam. It's not much of stretch he can do it again. Fed is the one with the momentum at this point, not either of the other two. He cares about about another Grand slam not number 77. He could care less at this point total singles titles.

I'm not saying he will win, we will just all have to wait to see how it plays out, but low probability he can do it i don't think so.

[masterclass]

Originally Posted by EnriqueIG8

Astonishing post once again, John.

Thanks Sir Javier.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[Roamed]

Originally Posted by silver lining

How would that help? There is no roof at the USO.

As grahampros said, it dilutes the influence of Stupid Saturday (where Fed would almost certainly be playing second) if they get a proper day off the day after, as they have done in the last few years.

[masterclass]

Originally Posted by grahampros

20 grand slams is possible, 100 total titles not really. It's just highly unlikely he'll be around long enough to get another 24 total titles. 20 Grand Slams will be a stretch as well but, if he has one more great year, it's possible. 24 more titles is far less likely. I dont really think he cares about total titles anyway. He knows he will never beat Jimmy Conner's record in that regard so it's not a record he's chasing.

Actually he has considered it and said, "I'd love to win 100 titles". Maybe he has even read this thread. But he discusses it in an interview posted earlier in this thread in this post Watch the whole video or start it about 1:15 to get the context of Federer's statement made about 100 titles at 2:15. Notice even though he thinks it might not be possible, he leaves room for it by saying "we'll see how it goes".

Respectfully,
masterclass

[grahampros]

Originally Posted by masterclass

Actually he has considered it and said, "I'd love to win 100 titles". Maybe he has even read this thread. But he discusses it in an interview posted earlier in this thread in this post Watch the whole video or start it about 1:15 to get the context of Federer's statement made about 100 titles at 2:15. Notice even though he thinks it might not be possible, he leaves room for it by saying "we'll see how it goes".

Respectfully,
masterclass

No he really doesn't care about it. That was fairly classic Fed being diplomatic. He'd only care about getting to Jimmy's record of what 125. Number 2 or 3 on list doesn't really interest him at this stage.

[masterclass]

Originally Posted by grahampros

No he really doesn't care about it. That was fairly classic Fed being diplomatic. He'd only care about getting to Jimmy's record of what 125. Number 2 or 3 on list doesn't really interest him at this stage.

I don't know how you can reach that certain a conclusion unless you are Federer yourself. I mean, he brought the subject up, the interviewer didn't. So obviously he has thought about it, so I conclude that he might care about it to a certain extent, especially the closer and more attainable it seems to him. Whether he absolutely does or not, only he can say. He knows history and what records are on the line. And by the way, Jimmy's record is much less, though still high -109.

Respectfully,
masterclass

[grahampros]

Originally Posted by masterclass

I don't know how you can reach that certain a conclusion unless you are Federer yourself. I mean, he brought the subject up, the interviewer didn't. So obviously he has thought about it, so I conclude that he might care about it to a certain extent, especially the closer and more attainable it seems to him. Whether he absolutely does or not, only he can say. He knows history and what records are on the line. And by the way, Jimmy's record is much less, though still high -109.

Respectfully,
masterclass

it's fairly simple math. Going forward he can expect max 5 to 6 titles a year ( and that's being very generous). Let's assume he finishes this year at 78, which is realistic. That would mean 32 more titles go for the record. Assuming 5 a year, that's another 6.5 years. That's just not gonna happen and he knows that.

[pray-for-palestine-and-israel]

if roger really wanted this record he would play MM tournies since 2000 and would have 100 titles already

they dont mean sh*t

what defines greatness is slam results
year end number 1
weeks at number 1
all surface dominance
playing great tennis week in week out

[grahampros]

Originally Posted by pray-for-palestine-and-israel

if roger really wanted this record he would play MM tournies since 2000 and would have 100 titles already

they dont mean sh*t

what defines greatness is slam results
year end number 1
weeks at number 1
all surface dominance
playing great tennis week in week out

Exactly. Total titles is well down his list. Why some don't get that obvious fact i don't get. That is one record he's not chasing.

[Jamoz]

20 slams is maybe, 100 titles is no way!

[masterclass]

The discussion is about 100 titles not 109

That's 5.5 titles/year for 4 years. And starting next year he his free to cherry pick his tournaments as he has qualified for a total exemption.

And no one knows for sure how long he'll play...

Respectfully,
masterclass

[grahampros]

Originally Posted by masterclass

The discussion is about 100 titles not 109

That's 5.5 titles/year for 4 years. And starting next year he his free to cherry pick his tournaments as he has qualified for a total exemption.

And no one knows for sure how long he'll play...

Respectfully,
masterclass

Likely just not on his goal list at this point. The real goals here likely are US number 6 and Wimbledon number 8 to break the tie with other players as the undisputed king of the events. Why care about lessor events? He has no reason to at this point.

[Cereal Killer]

Originally Posted by Roamed

As grahampros said, it dilutes the influence of Stupid Saturday (where Fed would almost certainly be playing second) if they get a proper day off the day after, as they have done in the last few years.

Isn't that a little pre-mature? He still has 4 matches to win until we need to worry about that.

[grahampros]

Originally Posted by silver lining

Isn't that a little pre-mature? He still has 4 matches to win until we need to worry about that.

As i said in my post on the topic, lot of assumptions here. Agreed it's premature on any of the players to see what we end up with for the semis and finals. But it is likely true, it will be Nole, Fed and Murray that will be in the mix. But we will have to wait and see. So far this outcome appears on track for all 3 in that it's not even been close.