[YANIVMUS]

federer now with 206 weeks
he need little more then 3 years

 

[Adler]

I don't think so. Many new guys in Top 10 who have shown they're capable of beating Federer. Besides, Feds is older and older and he'll be getting exhausted in later phases of big tournaments

But I think he's got a shot at Connors's record of 286 weeks

 

[gjr]

I don't think so. Another 3 years would be an amazing acheivement and the slams count woulds be pretty close to or even surpassing 20.

I can see 250-280 weeks but the young guns are comming.

 

[Omnipotence]

the next 4 years will tell us if Federer is a once in a generation player or a once in a century player...

 

[Rogiman]

Not even close

 

[Omnipotence]

I don't think so. Many new guys in Top 10 who have shown they're capable of beating Federer. Besides, Feds is older and older and he'll be getting exhausted in later phases of big tournaments

But I think he's got a shot at Connors's record of 286 weeks

Yeah, I think 377 weeks is unlikely. I think though that he will continually peak for Slams and be an irritable major force for the rest of the tour for at least the next 4 years even if he loses his number one ranking for extended periods of time and becomes less dominant.

 

[juninhOH]

he'd have to started ruling the ranking aroudn 19 or 20, he started "too late" (I don't think 22 is late, but for acomplishing that, sure is).

 

[Tabledott]

It's Samprasses record, not Connors for 286 weeks.

 

[Adler]

Right, thanks for that. Czech mistake as we say in Poland, because Connors's number is 268 :haha:

 

[Tabledott]

I'd go for Roger taking about 320 weeks at number one. Right now he's 206. Two more years = 206 + 106 = 312. I think he might lose it sometimes about IW 2010 and Miami 2010 but dunno really. It's just a tough prediction.

 

[Sunset of Age]

No way.

He's a relatively late bloomer - won't manage that. It's very unlikely that he'll be able to keep up this level for the coming three years.

 

[Hard Hitter]

I think its pretty much impossible for the next three years. Especially with Nadal being much younger and other up and comers.

 

[GuiroNl]

To be honest, women's tennis is much weaker (depth wise) than men's tennis which is the reason that Graf managed that amazing number in the first place.

 

[OZTENNIS]

yes :shrug:

 

[stebs]

No.

 

[~Marija~]

Yes

Allez Roger

 

[Marek.]

No

 

[friendlypirate]

Probably not. But its not impossible. I'd say like 5% chance.

 

[tennisgal_001]

I don't think so. The "young guns" (we should really stop calling them that, they've been around long enough now) are catching up fast, some of them have even established themselves as serious contenders at Slams and AMS. I wouldn't be surprised if Federer manages to hang on to the top-spot till the end of 2009, but it is only wishful thinking to expect him to dominate long after that.