Why is Roger bothering with clay?

[lacatch]

Out early in Monte Carlo and Madrid, and a 250 level win over nobodies in Turkey. He has no chance in Rome or the French, so is it pride? Trying to keep the record going in consecutive grand slams played? Why not save up energy/get an early start on Wimbledon, where he DOES have a chance to increase his slam total?

 

[tented]

Out early in Monte Carlo and Madrid, and a 250 level win over nobodies in Turkey. He has no chance in Rome or the French, so is it pride? Trying to keep the record going in consecutive grand slams played? Why not save up energy/get an early start on Wimbledon, where he DOES have a chance to increase his slam total?

Because anything can happen, and he wants to be there to take advantage of such situations.

As I wrote in another thread recently, it's possible (not probable, but possible) for Novak and Rafa to lose early in Rome or RG. Should that happen, Roger wants to be there. He could finally grab the Rome title or get his second RG, thus getting a double career slam.

I also don't think it would be to his advantage to shut things down between now and Halle. Not playing for 5-6 weeks would disturb his rhythm, and do more harm than good.

 

[Riotbeard]

Out early in Monte Carlo and Madrid, and a 250 level win over nobodies in Turkey. He has no chance in Rome or the French, so is it pride? Trying to keep the record going in consecutive grand slams played? Why not save up energy/get an early start on Wimbledon, where he DOES have a chance to increase his slam total?

Because anything can happen, and he wants to be there to take advantage of such situations.

As I wrote in another thread recently, it's possible (not probable, but possible) for Novak and Rafa to lose early in Rome or RG. Should that happen, Roger wants to be there. He could finally grab the Rome title or get his second RG, thus getting a double career slam.

I also don't think it would be to his advantage to shut things down between now and Halle. Not playing for 5-6 weeks would disturb his rhythm, and do more harm than good.

Ditto, and he is still the 3rd or 4th best player on clay.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

he is 'bothering' with clay because he likes it and he is a tennis player. thus he plays on clay.

.............................................................. and he wins titles on it. ace.

 

[Moxie]

Out early in Monte Carlo and Madrid, and a 250 level win over nobodies in Turkey. He has no chance in Rome or the French, so is it pride? Trying to keep the record going in consecutive grand slams played? Why not save up energy/get an early start on Wimbledon, where he DOES have a chance to increase his slam total?

Because anything can happen, and he wants to be there to take advantage of such situations.

As I wrote in another thread recently, it's possible (not probable, but possible) for Novak and Rafa to lose early in Rome or RG. Should that happen, Roger wants to be there. He could finally grab the Rome title or get his second RG, thus getting a double career slam.

I also don't think it would be to his advantage to shut things down between now and Halle. Not playing for 5-6 weeks would disturb his rhythm, and do more harm than good.

Ditto, and he is still the 3rd or 4th best player on clay.

I third this. It's the difference between fan-cringing, and a champion fancying his chances. He may need help at the clay events, but if he's not there to capitalize, should the help present itself, he doesn't get the benefit. Also, I don't think Roger's ego suffers from these clay losses, or overmuch. But it keeps him match-tough.

 

[Riotbeard]

Because anything can happen, and he wants to be there to take advantage of such situations.

As I wrote in another thread recently, it's possible (not probable, but possible) for Novak and Rafa to lose early in Rome or RG. Should that happen, Roger wants to be there. He could finally grab the Rome title or get his second RG, thus getting a double career slam.

I also don't think it would be to his advantage to shut things down between now and Halle. Not playing for 5-6 weeks would disturb his rhythm, and do more harm than good.

Ditto, and he is still the 3rd or 4th best player on clay.

I third this. It's the difference between fan-cringing, and a champion fancying his chances. He may need help at the clay events, but if he's not there to capitalize, should the help present itself, he doesn't get the benefit. Also, I don't think Roger's ego suffers from these clay losses, or overmuch. But it keeps him match-tough.

Even as a Novak fan, let's take this possibility Rafa ends up on Novak's side of the draw the F.O. Novak wins a five set epic against rafa in the semi's, but has to face Fed in the final. I favor Novak still, but Roger has a chance to make 18.

 

[Moxie]

Ditto, and he is still the 3rd or 4th best player on clay.

I third this. It's the difference between fan-cringing, and a champion fancying his chances. He may need help at the clay events, but if he's not there to capitalize, should the help present itself, he doesn't get the benefit. Also, I don't think Roger's ego suffers from these clay losses, or overmuch. But it keeps him match-tough.

Even as a Novak fan, let's take this possibility Rafa ends up on Novak's side of the draw the F.O. Novak wins a five set epic against rafa in the semi's, but has to face Fed in the final. I favor Novak still, but Roger has a chance to make 18.

Of course that is one possible scenario, and why would Roger pass up that chance? He will be seeded #2, and the draw could be kind. He might just be the last man standing. Roger didn't get where he is by giving up on opportunities before they present themselves.

 

[Riotbeard]

I third this. It's the difference between fan-cringing, and a champion fancying his chances. He may need help at the clay events, but if he's not there to capitalize, should the help present itself, he doesn't get the benefit. Also, I don't think Roger's ego suffers from these clay losses, or overmuch. But it keeps him match-tough.

Even as a Novak fan, let's take this possibility Rafa ends up on Novak's side of the draw the F.O. Novak wins a five set epic against rafa in the semi's, but has to face Fed in the final. I favor Novak still, but Roger has a chance to make 18.

Of course that is one possible scenario, and why would Roger pass up that chance? He will be seeded #2, and the draw could be kind. He might just be the last man standing. Roger didn't get where he is by giving up on opportunities before they present themselves.

Yes, many of his fans underestimate him!

 

[lacatch]

Moxie--I think you and the others are living in the past. The chances of Roger coming thru on clay--when his game today more than ever relies on his serve and coming to net more often-(least effective on clay)--are slim to none. I just think he would have been better off playing in Rome, and then playing himself into shape at the French. In that way he'd conserve energy for the grass season, as Wimbledon may be a now-or-never moment for him this year. Time will tell in retrospect with 100% clarity, as always

 

[Carol]

Federer after Nadal has been the best clay player but at the present I don't see him reaching the RG semis and less the final though I'm sure he will try but I will be surprise if he would get there

 

[Moxie]

Moxie--I think you and the others are living in the past. The chances of Roger coming thru on clay--when his game today more than ever relies on his serve and coming to net more often-(least effective on clay)--are slim to none. I just think he would have been better off playing in Rome, and then playing himself into shape at the French. In that way he'd conserve energy for the grass season, as Wimbledon may be a now-or-never moment for him this year. Time will tell in retrospect with 100% clarity, as always

I don't think so much we are living in the past to say that Roger should stay in the game. Do we give him more of a shot on clay, if the options are Djokovic/Nadal? No. If they get eliminated, yes. It can happen. Or, as RB posits, what if Djokovic comes through a crushing 5-setter v. Nadal? I think we all agree that he should play Rome, and play himself into shape at RG. We just don't think he should skip them, for the sake of protecting Wimbledon. I thought that was your position, originally.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Roger has to play. Sitting out here and there is OK, but if he wants to achieve anything, he has to get in some sort of a groove. Doesn't matter what surface that groove will come from.

 

[Denis]

Out early in Monte Carlo and Madrid, and a 250 level win over nobodies in Turkey. He has no chance in Rome or the French, so is it pride? Trying to keep the record going in consecutive grand slams played? Why not save up energy/get an early start on Wimbledon, where he DOES have a chance to increase his slam total?

Because anything can happen, and he wants to be there to take advantage of such situations.

As I wrote in another thread recently, it's possible (not probable, but possible) for Novak and Rafa to lose early in Rome or RG. Should that happen, Roger wants to be there. He could finally grab the Rome title or get his second RG, thus getting a double career slam.

I also don't think it would be to his advantage to shut things down between now and Halle. Not playing for 5-6 weeks would disturb his rhythm, and do more harm than good.

Ditto, and he is still the 3rd or 4th best player on clay.

Of the past 10 years, yes. Currently, no. I would place Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych, Nishikori, Murray and Raonic above him. Even Ferrer has better results.

 

[isabelle]

Out early in Monte Carlo and Madrid, and a 250 level win over nobodies in Turkey. He has no chance in Rome or the French, so is it pride? Trying to keep the record going in consecutive grand slams played? Why not save up energy/get an early start on Wimbledon, where he DOES have a chance to increase his slam total?

He has 0 chance to win Wimbly, let's be realistic for once. He won Istanbul on clay so he was right to play . He's still able to won a 250 or a 500, whatever the surface is but GS are unreachable for him
Each year his fans pretend he'll win Wimbly, don't know why they think that but skipping clay woudn't help him to win Wimbly for sure

 

[dr.k.gopal]

Moxie--I think you and the others are living in the past. The chances of Roger coming thru on clay--when his game today more than ever relies on his serve and coming to net more often-(least effective on clay)--are slim to none. I just think he would have been better off playing in Rome, and then playing himself into shape at the French. In that way he'd conserve energy for the grass season, as Wimbledon may be a now-or-never moment for him this year. Time will tell in retrospect with 100% clarity, as always

Moxie--I think you and the others are living in the past. The chances of Roger coming thru on clay--when his game today more than ever relies on his serve and coming to net more often-(least effective on clay)--are slim to none. I just think he would have been better off playing in Rome, and then playing himself into shape at the French. In that way he'd conserve energy for the grass season, as Wimbledon may be a now-or-never moment for him this year. Time will tell in retrospect with 100% clarity, as always

I don't think so much we are living in the past to say that Roger should stay in the game. Do we give him more of a shot on clay, if the options are Djokovic/Nadal? No. If they get eliminated, yes. It can happen. Or, as RB posits, what if Djokovic comes through a crushing 5-setter v. Nadal? I think we all agree that he should play Rome, and play himself into shape at RG. We just don't think he should skip them, for the sake of protecting Wimbledon. I thought that was your position, originally.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Probably because it's not a good idea to take two full months off. Also because he's pretty good on clay.

 

[herios]

Because he is bothering with tennis

 

[lacatch]

Moxie--I think you and the others are living in the past. The chances of Roger coming thru on clay--when his game today more than ever relies on his serve and coming to net more often-(least effective on clay)--are slim to none. I just think he would have been better off playing in Rome, and then playing himself into shape at the French. In that way he'd conserve energy for the grass season, as Wimbledon may be a now-or-never moment for him this year. Time will tell in retrospect with 100% clarity, as always

I don't think so much we are living in the past to say that Roger should stay in the game. Do we give him more of a shot on clay, if the options are Djokovic/Nadal? No. If they get eliminated, yes. It can happen. Or, as RB posits, what if Djokovic comes through a crushing 5-setter v. Nadal? I think we all agree that he should play Rome, and play himself into shape at RG. We just don't think he should skip them, for the sake of protecting Wimbledon. I thought that was your position, originally.

Moxie--For some reason you try to imply that many posters are "changing their original position" or being inconsistent in their logic. I HAVEN'T changed my position or the point of this thread. I agree with Denisovich who said listed many players who could reasonably beat Roger on clay at this point. And I NEVER said I didn't think Roger should stay in the game---I was strictly speaking about the time/effort he should/shouldn't put into the clay season. I think at this point it's all about managing his body/energy, and not wasting effort where he realistically has little/no chance.

 

[Riotbeard]

Moxie--I think you and the others are living in the past. The chances of Roger coming thru on clay--when his game today more than ever relies on his serve and coming to net more often-(least effective on clay)--are slim to none. I just think he would have been better off playing in Rome, and then playing himself into shape at the French. In that way he'd conserve energy for the grass season, as Wimbledon may be a now-or-never moment for him this year. Time will tell in retrospect with 100% clarity, as always

I don't think so much we are living in the past to say that Roger should stay in the game. Do we give him more of a shot on clay, if the options are Djokovic/Nadal? No. If they get eliminated, yes. It can happen. Or, as RB posits, what if Djokovic comes through a crushing 5-setter v. Nadal? I think we all agree that he should play Rome, and play himself into shape at RG. We just don't think he should skip them, for the sake of protecting Wimbledon. I thought that was your position, originally.

Moxie--For some reason you try to imply that many posters are "changing their original position" or being inconsistent in their logic. I HAVEN'T changed my position or the point of this thread. I agree with Denisovich who said listed many players who could reasonably beat Roger on clay at this point. And I NEVER said I didn't think Roger should stay in the game---I was strictly speaking about the time/effort he should/shouldn't put into the clay season. I think at this point it's all about managing his body/energy, and not wasting effort where he realistically has little/no chance.

The thing is outside of Rafa and Novak, I would favor Roger against all the players Denis listed except Kei, but he certainly could beat Kei on clay. He would wipe the floor with Ferrer, and is favored against Berdych, Murray, and Raonic. To my knowledge Andy still doesn't even have a top 10 win on clay.

Nobody has great odds outside Rafa or Novak, but Feds are certainly better than most of the field.

 

[Riotbeard]

Oh I forgot! He beat Raonic yesterday, so he has at least 1.