Federer's Schedule for 2014

[DarthFed]

17 might not be enough soon. It goes without saying he should have won more anyways considering some of the collapses he had in semis and finals.

You can say Roger has done everything now but if Rafa gets to 18 then suddenly he hasn't done everything and his career is a whole hell of a lot less great. You have to think for the future.

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

It's hard to equate FO and AO majors to Wimbledon and USO due to so many players over the years who actually skipped Paris and Kooyong way back when! I grew up with Stefan Edberg the only top player who never missed a major; no matter his health issues! Nowadays the big 4 make it to almost every major except if they're injured; Nole & Roger anyway! The majors are balancing out, but Wimbledon on grass is still the barometer of greatness! A while back 3 of the 4 majors were on grass! It's not me, but the so called experts that say it; just a consensus on their part it seems! Sorry! :nono Borg was great just winning the FO, but all those Wimbledons is why he's really remembered and put on a pedestal! :clap

I think you're wrong to put together why players used to skip Australia, and if, and why, they skipped RG. Those are two different issues. Australia was too far away. If players skipped RG, and I don't believe as many did, it was because they had no clay chops. I agree that we all think that Wimbledon is the Cathedral of tennis, and the Holy Grail, but let's not kid ourselves that there is anything like a grass game, anymore. S&V is all but dead. Winning on grass proves that a player has an all-around game, but you can't say it means more just because more of the tournaments used to be played on grass. That's just pure nostalgia, or actual blindness to the game as it is played, today.

Number of slams is most important, and then there are things such as if a player wins a calendar year slam or non calendar year slam that might add to it. Being king of 2 of the majors could add to it as well, right now there is only one undisputed king at a major and it is Nadal at RG. Nole will almost certainly have AO when all is said and done. Roger is tied at Wimbledon and badly underachieved in New York and is tied there with Sampras and Connors. If he is winning another one it will be at one of those venues and would break the tie.

I don't understand how you can say that Roger 'badly underachieved' at the USO. He won 5 titles there. What more could you want? You're saying that Djokovic will probably own the AO, but he's still one shy of Roger at the USO. I understand about standards being impossibly high, but it's worth noting what has already been done, and how spectacular it is. And what Nadal and Djokovic are gunning for has still yet to be done. As to Federer, it has already been done.

The collapse to DP in the final was hideous. That'd have been 6 titles in a row and then you throw in the total chokes the next 2 years to Djokovic and you are looking at a resume of at least 6 straight titles and 8 straight finals. You could even throw in the ugly loss to Berd in 2012 when a win probably would have made him the favorite in the big wind storms that weekend. Roger had too much game to only be sitting on 5 USO's. Of everywhere that is the one place he underachieved IMO.

 

[Fiero425]

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

It's hard to equate FO and AO majors to Wimbledon and USO due to so many players over the years who actually skipped Paris and Kooyong way back when! I grew up with Stefan Edberg the only top player who never missed a major; no matter his health issues! Nowadays the big 4 make it to almost every major except if they're injured; Nole & Roger anyway! The majors are balancing out, but Wimbledon on grass is still the barometer of greatness! A while back 3 of the 4 majors were on grass! It's not me, but the so called experts that say it; just a consensus on their part it seems! Sorry! :nono Borg was great just winning the FO, but all those Wimbledons is why he's really remembered and put on a pedestal! :clap

I think you're wrong to put together why players used to skip Australia, and if, and why, they skipped RG. Those are two different issues. Australia was too far away. If players skipped RG, and I don't believe as many did, it was because they had no clay chops. I agree that we all think that Wimbledon is the Cathedral of tennis, and the Holy Grail, but let's not kid ourselves that there is anything like a grass game, anymore. S&V is all but dead. Winning on grass proves that a player has an all-around game, but you can't say it means more just because more of the tournaments used to be played on grass. That's just pure nostalgia, or actual blindness to the game as it is played, today.

Number of slams is most important, and then there are things such as if a player wins a calendar year slam or non calendar year slam that might add to it. Being king of 2 of the majors could add to it as well, right now there is only one undisputed king at a major and it is Nadal at RG. Nole will almost certainly have AO when all is said and done. Roger is tied at Wimbledon and badly underachieved in New York and is tied there with Sampras and Connors. If he is winning another one it will be at one of those venues and would break the tie.

I don't understand how you can say that Roger 'badly underachieved' at the USO. He won 5 titles there. What more could you want? You're saying that Djokovic will probably own the AO, but he's still one shy of Roger at the USO. I understand about standards being impossibly high, but it's worth noting what has already been done, and how spectacular it is. And what Nadal and Djokovic are gunning for has still yet to be done. As to Federer, it has already been done.

The collapse to DP in the final was hideous. That'd have been 6 titles in a row and then you throw in the total chokes the next 2 years to Djokovic and you are looking at a resume of at least 6 straight titles and 8 straight finals. You could even throw in the ugly loss to Berd in 2012 when a win probably would have made him the favorite in the big wind storms that weekend. Roger had too much game to only be sitting on 5 USO's. Of everywhere that is the one place he underachieved IMO.

I can't say Roger underachieved, but he accomplished a lot before losing a few matches he shouldn't! Lendl played 8 USO finals, winning 3 straight! That was the best until Roger won his 5 in a row! Those chokes aren't surprising! Toward the end of some players' careers there's a little doubt residing in their heads and no lead is safe! I can't tell you how many majors, even regular titles Martina gave away due to burnout! In '87 she was making final after final, but found ways to give them away including FO final and Eastborne on grass where she was up 5-0 before going down in straight sets! She didn't pull it together until she got to her "sanctuary," Centre Court Wimbledon taking out Graf in straight sets, then again at the USO! She had a couple bad years, but managed to be a set up and break at '89 USO final before succumbing to Graf in 3! Towards the end of a career, it happens; some more than others! :nono :cry

 

[Moxie]

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

It's hard to equate FO and AO majors to Wimbledon and USO due to so many players over the years who actually skipped Paris and Kooyong way back when! I grew up with Stefan Edberg the only top player who never missed a major; no matter his health issues! Nowadays the big 4 make it to almost every major except if they're injured; Nole & Roger anyway! The majors are balancing out, but Wimbledon on grass is still the barometer of greatness! A while back 3 of the 4 majors were on grass! It's not me, but the so called experts that say it; just a consensus on their part it seems! Sorry! :nono Borg was great just winning the FO, but all those Wimbledons is why he's really remembered and put on a pedestal! :clap

I think you're wrong to put together why players used to skip Australia, and if, and why, they skipped RG. Those are two different issues. Australia was too far away. If players skipped RG, and I don't believe as many did, it was because they had no clay chops. I agree that we all think that Wimbledon is the Cathedral of tennis, and the Holy Grail, but let's not kid ourselves that there is anything like a grass game, anymore. S&V is all but dead. Winning on grass proves that a player has an all-around game, but you can't say it means more just because more of the tournaments used to be played on grass. That's just pure nostalgia, or actual blindness to the game as it is played, today.

Number of slams is most important, and then there are things such as if a player wins a calendar year slam or non calendar year slam that might add to it. Being king of 2 of the majors could add to it as well, right now there is only one undisputed king at a major and it is Nadal at RG. Nole will almost certainly have AO when all is said and done. Roger is tied at Wimbledon and badly underachieved in New York and is tied there with Sampras and Connors. If he is winning another one it will be at one of those venues and would break the tie.

I don't understand how you can say that Roger 'badly underachieved' at the USO. He won 5 titles there. What more could you want? You're saying that Djokovic will probably own the AO, but he's still one shy of Roger at the USO. I understand about standards being impossibly high, but it's worth noting what has already been done, and how spectacular it is. And what Nadal and Djokovic are gunning for has still yet to be done. As to Federer, it has already been done.

The collapse to DP in the final was hideous. That'd have been 6 titles in a row and then you throw in the total chokes the next 2 years to Djokovic and you are looking at a resume of at least 6 straight titles and 8 straight finals. You could even throw in the ugly loss to Berd in 2012 when a win probably would have made him the favorite in the big wind storms that weekend. Roger had too much game to only be sitting on 5 USO's. Of everywhere that is the one place he underachieved IMO.

Obviously, you hold Federer to a high standard, but you should give Del Potro the credit for that win against Roger in 2009. He was having a stellar year, and he figured out how to beat a great champion in a Slam while he was playing it. It isn't just that Roger collapsed. That's unfair to Del Po. And everything else you mentioned is merely speculation on matches that he lost, as to if he would have done better going forward. You can regret all you want that he didn't move to the next round in those matches, but there was far from a guarantee that he would have won the title. In two of those, he would have faced Rafa. (I could only have wished.) Five USO titles is a very fine record. What he didn't do, he didn't do. End of story.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The thing is Roger Federer has already done so much that anything he does
is bound to be a record of some sorts. If he wins any one of the four grand slams
in 2014, each will be a unique achievement.

1. If he wins AO, he will be the sole person with maximum number of
AO titles in open era. Currently tied with Agasi and Djokovic.
(I would especially like this one as it would stop Novak from
getting that distinction apart from Fed getting it - See my
signature below).

2. If he wins FO, he will be the first person to achieve double
career slam in the open era (assuming Nadal does not clinch
that honor in AO 2014).

3. If he wins Wimby, he would be the sole person with maximum number
of Wimbledon titles in open era. Currently tied with Pete.

4. If he wins USO, he would be the sole person with maximum number of
USO titles in open era. Currently tied with Connors and Pete.

Of course, Nadal is already the sole person with maximum number of
FO in open era.

Even if Fed wins just Brisbane, that is also a record. That will move him
into sole person in #3 spot for number of titles won. Currently he is sharing
it with McEnroe with 77 titles. The two ahead of him are Connors (110) and
Lendl (94). It would be extremely difficult to reach Lendl and almost impossible
to reach Connors in this count.

Just by playing in AO, he achieves the following two records.

1. He would be in sole possession of #1 spot for most consecutive
appearances in grand slams (at 57). He is currently sharing #1
spot with Wayne Ferreira.

2. He would go into sole possession of # 3 spot for maximum no. of
grand slam appearances. His tally is currently 58 (it will become
59 in AO) and right now he is sharing #3 spot with buch of
people. The two ahead of him are Agassi with 61 and
the Magician with 70.

 

[DarthFed]

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

It's hard to equate FO and AO majors to Wimbledon and USO due to so many players over the years who actually skipped Paris and Kooyong way back when! I grew up with Stefan Edberg the only top player who never missed a major; no matter his health issues! Nowadays the big 4 make it to almost every major except if they're injured; Nole & Roger anyway! The majors are balancing out, but Wimbledon on grass is still the barometer of greatness! A while back 3 of the 4 majors were on grass! It's not me, but the so called experts that say it; just a consensus on their part it seems! Sorry! :nono Borg was great just winning the FO, but all those Wimbledons is why he's really remembered and put on a pedestal! :clap

I think you're wrong to put together why players used to skip Australia, and if, and why, they skipped RG. Those are two different issues. Australia was too far away. If players skipped RG, and I don't believe as many did, it was because they had no clay chops. I agree that we all think that Wimbledon is the Cathedral of tennis, and the Holy Grail, but let's not kid ourselves that there is anything like a grass game, anymore. S&V is all but dead. Winning on grass proves that a player has an all-around game, but you can't say it means more just because more of the tournaments used to be played on grass. That's just pure nostalgia, or actual blindness to the game as it is played, today.

Number of slams is most important, and then there are things such as if a player wins a calendar year slam or non calendar year slam that might add to it. Being king of 2 of the majors could add to it as well, right now there is only one undisputed king at a major and it is Nadal at RG. Nole will almost certainly have AO when all is said and done. Roger is tied at Wimbledon and badly underachieved in New York and is tied there with Sampras and Connors. If he is winning another one it will be at one of those venues and would break the tie.

I don't understand how you can say that Roger 'badly underachieved' at the USO. He won 5 titles there. What more could you want? You're saying that Djokovic will probably own the AO, but he's still one shy of Roger at the USO. I understand about standards being impossibly high, but it's worth noting what has already been done, and how spectacular it is. And what Nadal and Djokovic are gunning for has still yet to be done. As to Federer, it has already been done.

The collapse to DP in the final was hideous. That'd have been 6 titles in a row and then you throw in the total chokes the next 2 years to Djokovic and you are looking at a resume of at least 6 straight titles and 8 straight finals. You could even throw in the ugly loss to Berd in 2012 when a win probably would have made him the favorite in the big wind storms that weekend. Roger had too much game to only be sitting on 5 USO's. Of everywhere that is the one place he underachieved IMO.

Obviously, you hold Federer to a high standard, but you should give Del Potro the credit for that win against Roger in 2009. He was having a stellar year, and he figured out how to beat a great champion in a Slam while he was playing it. It isn't just that Roger collapsed. That's unfair to Del Po. And everything else you mentioned is merely speculation on matches that he lost, as to if he would have done better going forward. You can regret all you want that he didn't move to the next round in those matches, but there was far from a guarantee that he would have won the title. In two of those, he would have faced Rafa. (I could only have wished.) Five USO titles is a very fine record. What he didn't do, he didn't do. End of story.

All 3 of those matches were collapses. DP hasn't won anything before or since, Roger was serving for a 2 sets lead, also had a 2 sets to 1 lead. That was a howler of a loss especially when you look back at it now. And then there were the 2 Djokovic debacles. I didn't say he was going to win the final just that he should have 6 titles and 8 finals at the absolute minimum. Thus the underachieving. In 2004-2008 he was heads and shoulders above everyone on a fast hard court, he played 2 five set matches in that period and generally did what was expected.

 

[Front242]

Fed's shot selection serving for that 2nd set was abysmal in the US Open '09 final. That was the worst time probably in his career he ever hit a crap dropshot. Why even hit a damn dropshot there let alone one that bad.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed's shot selection serving for that 2nd set was abysmal in the US Open '09 final. That was the worst time probably in his career he ever hit a crap dropshot. Why even hit a damn dropshot there let alone one that bad.

In 2009, after winning the first set, Fed took off the feet from the accelerator,
considering that DelPotro is a greenhorn and paid the price.

 

[Fiero425]

Fed's shot selection serving for that 2nd set was abysmal in the US Open '09 final. That was the worst time probably in his career he ever hit a crap dropshot. Why even hit a damn dropshot there let alone one that bad.

In 2009, after winning the first set, Fed took off the feet from the accelerator,
considering that DelPotro is a greenhorn and paid the price.

Well Roger miscalculated by a lot! If he had just seen the highlights of how Del Po destroyed Rafa a couple days before, it should have foretold what was possible! He took for granted his own legend and probably thought he could coast to another major; was so on a roll in terms of his overall streaks! :nono

 

[Busted]

Roger has very little chance to get to the top 4 before Wimbledon. For him it is all about scheduling to peak for Wimbledon and USO. If he has to face all 3 of the elite at Wimbledon forget about it, but if he survives to the semis and has to face 2 then watch out.

Call me the eternal optimist but I think it can be done simply because, as much as I like him, David Ferrer is just as old as Roger is. He's not going to be playing at this level for much longer either. Plus, he just doesn't have as many weapons as Roger. And he also plays a lot more often than Roger does. At some point all those matches are going to catch up with his nearly 32 year-old legs and inferior talent. Ferrer's had some pretty easy draws the last year or so. That's not going to continue for much longer - especially if he's got Roger on his side of the draw. Ferrer can't beat Roger to save his life. What's his H2H with Roger? He's 0-for-14. Given that Roger's back has healed and he's not playing in pain or with a limited range of motion? I'll take Fed in the Top 4 by Wimbledon IF he plays his full regular schedule and makes the semis or wins a few tourneys. I'll take him over Ferrer any day of the week and twice on Sundays. That's assuming, of course, that DelPo doesn't make a move into the Top 4 himself. But given the fact that DelPo is having problems beating Butt-Digging Boy :snigger and Nole - I wouldn't hold my breath on that score. I LIKE DelPo but he just doesn't move well enough to beat those guys over the course of a long match.

 

[Kieran]

Great stuff, Busted, I agree: if Ferrer is up there then Roger shouldn't despair.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Busted]

According to L'Equipe, Big Mac said that he would be surprised if Federer won more GS.

I like Johnny Mac...loved to watch him play and thought his tantrums were a riot...but he also said that in 2011. And that he'd be surprised if Fed got back to #1. I'm just sayin'...

 

[DarthFed]

Roger has very little chance to get to the top 4 before Wimbledon. For him it is all about scheduling to peak for Wimbledon and USO. If he has to face all 3 of the elite at Wimbledon forget about it, but if he survives to the semis and has to face 2 then watch out.

Call me the eternal optimist but I think it can be done simply because, as much as I like him, David Ferrer is just as old as Roger is. He's not going to be playing at this level for much longer either. Plus, he just doesn't have as many weapons as Roger. And he also plays a lot more often than Roger does. At some point all those matches are going to catch up with his nearly 32 year-old legs and inferior talent. Ferrer's had some pretty easy draws the last year or so. That's not going to continue for much longer - especially if he's got Roger on his side of the draw. Ferrer can't beat Roger to save his life. What's his H2H with Roger? He's 0-for-14. Given that Roger's back has healed and he's not playing in pain or with a limited range of motion? I'll take Fed in the Top 4 by Wimbledon IF he plays his full regular schedule and makes the semis or wins a few tourneys. I'll take him over Ferrer any day of the week and twice on Sundays. That's assuming, of course, that DelPo doesn't make a move into the Top 4 himself. But given the fact that DelPo is having problems beating Butt-Digging Boy :snigger and Nole - I wouldn't hold my breath on that score. I LIKE DelPo but he just doesn't move well enough to beat those guys over the course of a long match.

Ferrer isn't and never was anywhere near as good as Roger there is no question about that. Ferrer also will be dropping a lot of points at RG I would think so there is a chance to pass him before Wimbledon. The problem with Roger is that his results from AO 2013 through Halle were not THAT bad. Poor for his standards but not a complete disaster. Wimbledon was the start of the really awful results. DP could make a run and even Berd might be tough for Roger to pass. It can be done but it will be difficult. I do think Roger should be #4 by USO if he plays remotely decent this year.

 

[Busted]

That was a straightforward interview in which he says some things that some posters around here should take note of: (1) he views Nadal and Djokovic as the top two players and not himself; (2) he concedes he is not as fast as he was during his best years, and his movement in 2013 was hampered by a bad back.

It seems he is looking at things sensibly and with an eye towards posterity. He is in the twilight of his career, knows it and is comfortable with it. He wants to win more events and be "in great finals", even if he doesn't walk away with a title. It is a healthy outlook, but not one Connors would endorse.

There was a cold war brewing between Fed & Novak recently before the most recent interview
by Fed that I posted in this thread recently. Fed indeed righted the ship in this interview
instead of escalating it. Get into the juicy side of this story via the following article.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/novak-djokovic-refreshes-roger-federers-memory-162200751--ten.html

I don't see what the big deal is. ALL great athletes, even in the twilight of their careers, talk like victory is theirs for the taking. That's why they're great. They're arrogant as hell. How many times did Michael Jordan unretire? Muhammad Ali, too, for that matter? I lost count somewhere along the line. The things is - it's not like Nole is beating the pants off Roger. Their last few matches have been very close with Roger losing them due to his crappy serving in the final sets. So yes, those matches WERE on Roger's racket. And how many of us really think Nole and Butt-Digger will be playing at Roger's level at Roger's age? Not me, for that's for darned sure. I see Knee-dal retired with 2 bad knees before 30 and Nole still trying to win the French at 30 before calling it a day as well.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger has very little chance to get to the top 4 before Wimbledon. For him it is all about scheduling to peak for Wimbledon and USO. If he has to face all 3 of the elite at Wimbledon forget about it, but if he survives to the semis and has to face 2 then watch out.

Call me the eternal optimist but I think it can be done simply because, as much as I like him, David Ferrer is just as old as Roger is. He's not going to be playing at this level for much longer either. Plus, he just doesn't have as many weapons as Roger. And he also plays a lot more often than Roger does. At some point all those matches are going to catch up with his nearly 32 year-old legs and inferior talent. Ferrer's had some pretty easy draws the last year or so. That's not going to continue for much longer - especially if he's got Roger on his side of the draw. Ferrer can't beat Roger to save his life. What's his H2H with Roger? He's 0-for-14. Given that Roger's back has healed and he's not playing in pain or with a limited range of motion? I'll take Fed in the Top 4 by Wimbledon IF he plays his full regular schedule and makes the semis or wins a few tourneys. I'll take him over Ferrer any day of the week and twice on Sundays. That's assuming, of course, that DelPo doesn't make a move into the Top 4 himself. But given the fact that DelPo is having problems beating Butt-Digging Boy :snigger and Nole - I wouldn't hold my breath on that score. I LIKE DelPo but he just doesn't move well enough to beat those guys over the course of a long match.

Ferrer isn't and never was anywhere near as good as Roger there is no question about that. Ferrer also will be dropping a lot of points at RG I would think so there is a chance to pass him before Wimbledon. The problem with Roger is that his results from AO 2013 through Halle were not THAT bad. Poor for his standards but not a complete disaster. Wimbledon was the start of the really awful results. DP could make a run and even Berd might be tough for Roger to pass. It can be done but it will be difficult. I do think Roger should be #4 by USO if he plays remotely decent this year.

Even if Ferrer drops off and Roger overtakes Ferrer, there is no way he will be in
Top four before Wimbledon. This is because

1. It is no brainer that Roger will not overtake Novak or Rafa.

2. Murray did not even play in French Open last year and he will be playing
this year and so the chances of Murray dropping below 4 is less.
Keep in mind that Murray is about 1500 points ahead of Fed at this time.
Even if he fails at a fairly early stage at AO, his lead cushion
is quite high for him to remain in Top 4. Also, he did not play
at all in Feb and if needed he can always play in Rotterdam or
Dubai. So, I see very less chance of Roger overtaking Andy.

3. Del Potro did not even play in French Open last year, besides he is
defending a puny 90 points in AO and a punier 10 points in Miami.
Keep in mind that JMDP is about 1000 points ahead of Fed at this time.
So, I see literally no chance of Roger overtaking Del Potro before Wimbledon.


At best, Roger can make it to #5. If that happens, it will be at the expense
of Ferrer as I argued above. However, I would rather Roger be
#6 with Ferrer in top 4 (at least he will have one in four chances of
drawing Ferrer in QF) than Roger being #5 with ND, RN, AM and JMDP
in top 4 (as this would mean there is not even a favored QF opponent
and he has to beat three of the above four to win the title, assuming
seedings hold up).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I now think I know the strategy of Team Fed.

He is going to wait until the end of Indian Wells Tournament before making
any announcements about his schedule. He does not have any pressing decisions
to make until then (except for whether or not to play in DC). He has already
decided that his schedule until then will be Brisbane, AO, Dubai and IW. He
had already told Rotterdam Organizers (as I mentioned in the OP) that he
will not play there this year.

At the end of IW, they will take stock of the situation and determine
whether it is realistic for him to try to get into top 4 before the beginning
of Wimbledon.

If the answer is

a. YES, then he will go all out. Meaning he will play in both Miami and
Monte Carlo in addition to Rome, Madrid, FO and Halle, as nothing
short of that can possibly bring him to top 4.

b. No, then he will just stick to last years schedule and play neither
Miami, nor Monte Carlo. The aim would be to keep him fresh and
be at peak performance level for FO and Wimby.

So, with respect to Miami and Monte Carlo, I believe it will be all or
nothing for Fed.

p.s. Why don't they pay me for doing all this strategy development?

 

[Fiero425]

I now think I know the strategy of Team Fed.

He is going to wait until the end of Indian Wells Tournament before making
any announcements about his schedule. He does not have any pressing decisions
to make until then (except for whether or not to play in DC). He has already
decided that his schedule until then will be Brisbane, AO, Dubai and IW. He
had already told Rotterdam Organizers (as I mentioned in the OP) that he
will not play there this year.

At the end of IW, they will take stock of the situation and determine
whether it is realistic for him to try to get into top 4 before the beginning
of Wimbledon.

If the answer is

a. YES, then he will go all out. Meaning he will play in both Miami and
Monte Carlo in addition to Rome, Madrid, FO and Halle, as nothing
short of that can possibly bring him to top 4.

b. No, then he will just stick to last years schedule and play neither
Miami, nor Monte Carlo. The aim would be to keep him fresh and
be at peak performance level for FO and Wimby.

So, with respect to Miami and Monte Carlo, I believe it will be all or
nothing for Fed.

p.s. Why don't they pay me for doing all this strategy development?

He had better stick to last season's schedule! If he overdoes it and plays all those extra matches, forget making the 2nd week of the FO and Wimbledon! He has to work too hard to win early round matches as it is; "if" he wins them! The best thing is to limit his schedule, maybe skip FO altogether, and concentrate on taking another Wimbledon; retire as "THE GOAT!" :clap :angel: :idea:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed will not skip a grand slam event as part of strategy. That is not in his blood.
Unless he is seriously injured to the extent that he cannot play at all, he will not
just skip FO. He may skip other tournaments.

Also, he has never quit a match in the middle even when it becomes obvious
that he is losing. Even quitting before the beginning of a match, he has done it
only once I think. It was against Blake in Bercy. He gave a walk-over to Blake.
That is one of the reasons why he is often voted for sportsmanship award by
his peers (this is not a fan based or accomplishment based award).

 

[Busted]

Roger has very little chance to get to the top 4 before Wimbledon. For him it is all about scheduling to peak for Wimbledon and USO. If he has to face all 3 of the elite at Wimbledon forget about it, but if he survives to the semis and has to face 2 then watch out.

Call me the eternal optimist but I think it can be done simply because, as much as I like him, David Ferrer is just as old as Roger is. He's not going to be playing at this level for much longer either. Plus, he just doesn't have as many weapons as Roger. And he also plays a lot more often than Roger does. At some point all those matches are going to catch up with his nearly 32 year-old legs and inferior talent. Ferrer's had some pretty easy draws the last year or so. That's not going to continue for much longer - especially if he's got Roger on his side of the draw. Ferrer can't beat Roger to save his life. What's his H2H with Roger? He's 0-for-14. Given that Roger's back has healed and he's not playing in pain or with a limited range of motion? I'll take Fed in the Top 4 by Wimbledon IF he plays his full regular schedule and makes the semis or wins a few tourneys. I'll take him over Ferrer any day of the week and twice on Sundays. That's assuming, of course, that DelPo doesn't make a move into the Top 4 himself. But given the fact that DelPo is having problems beating Butt-Digging Boy :snigger and Nole - I wouldn't hold my breath on that score. I LIKE DelPo but he just doesn't move well enough to beat those guys over the course of a long match.

Ferrer isn't and never was anywhere near as good as Roger there is no question about that. Ferrer also will be dropping a lot of points at RG I would think so there is a chance to pass him before Wimbledon. The problem with Roger is that his results from AO 2013 through Halle were not THAT bad. Poor for his standards but not a complete disaster. Wimbledon was the start of the really awful results. DP could make a run and even Berd might be tough for Roger to pass. It can be done but it will be difficult. I do think Roger should be #4 by USO if he plays remotely decent this year.

Even if Ferrer drops off and Roger overtakes Ferrer, there is no way he will be in
Top four before Wimbledon. This is because

1. It is no brainer that Roger will not overtake Novak or Rafa.

2. Murray did not even play in French Open last year and he will be playing
this year and so the chances of Murray dropping below 4 is less.
Keep in mind that Murray is about 1500 points ahead of Fed at this time.
Even if he fails at a fairly early stage at AO, his lead cushion
is quite high for him to remain in Top 4. Also, he did not play
at all in Feb and if needed he can always play in Rotterdam or
Dubai. So, I see very less chance of Roger overtaking Andy.

3. Del Potro did not even play in French Open last year, besides he is
defending a puny 90 points in AO and a punier 10 points in Miami.
Keep in mind that JMDP is about 1000 points ahead of Fed at this time.
So, I see literally no chance of Roger overtaking Del Potro before Wimbledon.


At best, Roger can make it to #5. If that happens, it will be at the expense
of Ferrer as I argued above. However, I would rather Roger be
#6 with Ferrer in top 4 (at least he will have one in four chances of
drawing Ferrer in QF) than Roger being #5 with ND, RN, AM and JMDP
in top 4 (as this would mean there is not even a favored QF opponent
and he has to beat three of the above four to win the title, assuming
seedings hold up).

1. No one ever said that Roger would overtake Butt-Digger or Nole...

2. ...or even Murray for that matter. Plus, you're assuming Murray's back will be better by the FO or that he won't re-injur himself in the months leading up to it or that he'll suddenly be able to play on the red dirt. I don't think anyone is thinking Roger will overtake Murray so I'm not even sure why he's part of the conversation. The person I mentioned was Ferrer - not Murray, not Nole and not Butt-Digger.

3. Again, you'e assuming a lot. DelPo's been in and out a lot the last 2 years with wrist problems. He's a big guy so it's pretty funny that a little bone and cartilage in his wrist are his nemesis. I ddi account for DelPo making a move on #4. Given the right circumstances I can see DelPo making a move on #3 - especially if Murray's injured or not 100% due to his back.

I'm not saying Roger is going to be #4 by Wimbledon. I just think it's possible that he can be. If he plays well and beats the guys he needs to beat then it can happen with a little help from some of the others falling off. Roger's going to have to be 2 or 3 of the top 4 to win the title no matter if he's 4, 5 or 6. (I'm not even going to bring Berdych into the convo. Dude can't beat Nole or Butt-Digger to save his life so the chances of him getting into the top 4 are pretty much nil.) The seeding will make a difference as to which 2 he has to beat before the final. I'd much rather see him playing Nole, DelPo, Ferrer or Murray in the quarters and semis than Butt-Digger. As long as Rafa is on the opposite side of the draw Roger has a better chance of making the finals.

Roger had an off and injured year in 2013. Butt-Digger had one in 2012. That's just the way sports is. Roger was damned lucky to have gone the bulk of his career without a major injury before the age of 31 and obviously some of these other guys haven't been as lucky in that regard. And given the fact that none of these other guys are getting any younger either - Butt-Digger is about to be 28 and his knees are creakier than a 50 year-olds. Never say never - especially to a Fed fan.

 

[Mastoor]

Roger has very little chance to get to the top 4 before Wimbledon. For him it is all about scheduling to peak for Wimbledon and USO. If he has to face all 3 of the elite at Wimbledon forget about it, but if he survives to the semis and has to face 2 then watch out.

Darth, are you talking about top 4 or going down to #34? I don't think top 5 is realistic any more. The shots are there but no self confidence anymore.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger has very little chance to get to the top 4 before Wimbledon. For him it is all about scheduling to peak for Wimbledon and USO. If he has to face all 3 of the elite at Wimbledon forget about it, but if he survives to the semis and has to face 2 then watch out.

Darth, are you talking about top 4 or going down to #34? I don't think top 5 is realistic any more. The shots are there but no self confidence anymore.

I will be shocked if he isn't top 5 at year end. As awful as last year was he finished at #6. And the fact that I think a lot of last year was about lack of confidence means he still does have it in him to play good tennis. Confidence goes away a lot quicker than it comes back, but it is not impossible to get it back. Just a few good results in a row could do wonders for it.