PDA

View Full Version : Can Fed win 10 straight Wimbledons? Sounds crazy but...


Shaolin
02-22-2007, 08:19 AM
...check out this scenario...

2007: I see him winning pretty easily this year, last year he had an insanely tough draw and he only lost one set. Plus he'll be very motivated to get 5 straight and tie Borg's record.

2008: Fed will be possibly even MORE motivated to win so that he can set the new record of 6 straight. He wont want to be "just" tied with Borg.

2009: By this time Fed may have won the French or the Grand Slam already, in 07 or 08, so he will be able to relax a bit and just focus on the Wimbledon record. Also he will be motivated to tie Sampras' # of total Wimbledon wins, and he will know that every win will re-write the record books. Fed wins #7...

2010: Fed will want to add on to the record further and break Petes # of Wimbledon titles. Federer, at 28 will be at his peak. By this time, Federers volleys and net skills will be unreal and he will be motivated to win W by serve and volleying.

2011: Once he has 8 straight, Fed will become consumed by winning 10 straight. Everyone will be badgering him to do it as well. He toughs out his 9th straight knowing that if he gets 10 he will be go down as the UGOAT (Undisputed Greatest of All Time).

2012: Federer, with 9 straight titles, will be unbelievably motivated to win, plus trying to win the Golden Slam as well with the Olympics that year. Fed wins #10 and maybe even the GS and calls it a career at age 30...


Im not saying he definitely WILL do this, but its a somewhat decent possibility. Personally I think he will win 7 or 8 straight and then Murray will beat him in a final, but how scary would 10 straight be? I wouldnt mind seeing it.

noeledmonds
02-22-2007, 08:30 AM
Very unlikely. Being motivated alone does not win you any tournaments. The thing is you really have not provided any evidence as to how he could win 10 Wimbledons. Champions are getting younger all the time, and he is getting older. I don't think 28 will be Federer's peak. Sampras's peak was defenitly before 2000 (the equivilant year). I don't even think that Federer wil beat Sampras's 7 Wimbledons to be honest. Grass is far more apporachable to hard court players now (the surfaces are similar). Federer is unlikely to continue to dominate at Wimbledon after he stops dominating the world seen. I think he will win 6 or 7 titles.

chrisfromalbany
02-22-2007, 08:37 AM
just being not sick and not getting injured is pretty unlikely. And then there is out off change him actually getting beat.

I also think if he gets the career grandslam, the motion starts to go. He then knews he is the best of all time. I don't see him doing ten in a row then. What the point.

ACE of Hearts
02-22-2007, 08:53 AM
If he is healthy, he will tie Pete's record.I really want him to tie Borg's record this year.I think if he wins it this year, there is no doubt in my mind he will tie Sampras's 7 wimbly titles.The guy is unstopable on grass just like Sampras was.U better play the match of ur life to beat him on grass.

Shaolin
02-22-2007, 09:18 AM
Very unlikely. Being motivated alone does not win you any tournaments. The thing is you really have not provided any evidence as to how he could win 10 Wimbledons. Champions are getting younger all the time, and he is getting older. I don't think 28 will be Federer's peak. Sampras's peak was defenitly before 2000 (the equivilant year). I don't even think that Federer wil beat Sampras's 7 Wimbledons to be honest. Grass is far more apporachable to hard court players now (the surfaces are similar). Federer is unlikely to continue to dominate at Wimbledon after he stops dominating the world seen. I think he will win 6 or 7 titles.

I dont think he has to change, or add onto, anything in his game to win the next year or 2. After that, I think he will look to end points more quickly, s&v more and or come in more on his opponents serve. His net game has improved a lot in the last year and I think it will continue to improve vastly.

drakulie
02-22-2007, 09:25 AM
10 straight no. I don't see it happenening. Even the great Sampras when the surface was perfectly suited for him got knocked out during his 7 Wimbledons.

BeckerFan
02-22-2007, 09:53 AM
Ten straight is indeed asking a lot. Let's not hold our breath until we see six or seven straight, first.

Ten altogether may not be out of the question. Navratilova came close.

If Federer pulls it off, I'd say his goatiness will be beyond refute.

Condoleezza
02-22-2007, 09:59 AM
...check out this scenario...

2007: .... Plus he'll be very motivated .....

2008: Fed will be possibly even MORE motivated to win ....

2009: .... Also he will be motivated to tie ....

2010: .... and he will be motivated to win .....

2011: Once he has 8 straight, Fed will become consumed by winning 10 straight. ...

2012: Federer, with 9 straight titles, will be unbelievably motivated to win, ....


Im not saying he definitely WILL do this, ....

What???
Although he will be so motivated?

Condi

Shaolin
02-22-2007, 10:08 AM
Condi--
Wow, thats impressive. You know how to delete words from someones post and then make an unintelligible comment. BTW Feds motivation to win it is of significant importance which is why its reiterated.

Moose Malloy
02-22-2007, 10:22 AM
When Becker won his 2nd W at 18, everyone thought he was a lock for at least equaling Borg's 5.
When Sampras won his 7th, McEnroe thought 10 was possible, & was sure that Sampras would be at least a contender at W for the next 5 years.
However great & dominant & motivated Federer is, we have no idea who the top 10 will be 2 years from now, let alone 2012. Check out how many of the top 10 from 2000 are retired. The average age for a top 10 player the last 10 years is 24, so Federer will be well above average for the peak age of most pros by 2012.

federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 10:23 AM
It is hard to say. Federer is by far the most talented tennis player in history so if anybody can do it it would be him. I think his tennis game is only going to get better each year. There are some good up and comers though and anything-an injury, a hot opponent, a bit of bad luck, an off day, can scuttle plans. I think if he plays all those Wimbledons he will win 8 or 9, not 10. I will be happy with 8 or 9 though.

Nick Irons
02-22-2007, 10:26 AM
I'd bet against it happening.

illkhiboy
02-22-2007, 10:45 AM
Honestly, I think this is one thread screams "I am bored."
I am motivated, think I will become a professional tennis player by next year. No..it doesnt work like that.

Condoleezza
02-22-2007, 12:18 PM
Condi--
Wow, thats impressive. You know how to delete words from someones post and then make an unintelligible comment. BTW Feds motivation to win it is of significant importance which is why its reiterated.

Well, people often say that my comments are impressive.
Thanks anyway!

BTW, I don't think Fed is particularily motivated. Actually he doesn't seem to care a lot whether he wins of not.
But he simply is such a good player!

Condi

Swissv2
02-22-2007, 12:19 PM
condi is just bumbling unintelligently once again.

dukemunson
02-22-2007, 01:13 PM
No chance...it's the same phenomenon as all the threads popping up that Canas is a threat at the French because he played well last week and won a tournament albeit on a much larger scale. Winning 4 Winbledons in a row is amazing and allows one to talk about 5 (with 6 really pushing it). Too many factors come into play: injury, interest, up-and-coming players, etc...Federer is great but look at every sport that has had an all-time great, someone eventually comes along to either knock them off on a given day or totally unseat them. A thread about Federer at this point is a bit redundant as until he plays the next Slam will have little to offer as far as anything new of interesting to debate but one about him winning 10 straight is both ridiculous for its shortsighted implausibility and unfair to him for how tough winning 4 straight is.

ACE of Hearts
02-22-2007, 01:17 PM
Interest is not a problem.Federer has winning wimbledon as his number 1 goal each year.

joeyscl
02-22-2007, 01:21 PM
I would bet against it, but i wouldnt be too surprised if it does happen...

dukemunson
02-22-2007, 01:32 PM
Interest is not a problem.Federer has winning wimbledon as his number 1 goal each year.

Your looking at interest the wrong way though...its not interest in the sense of 25 years old healthy playing his best tennis. Im referring to interest when his body is breaking down a bit, he allready has the career grand slam and 6 Wimbeldon's in his belt. I like how we try to know what Federer is thinking about or has as his #1 goal...none of us know him other then the persona we see and to say he has the ability to win 10 is simply put ridiculous. When Rodick won the US Open a few years back all everyone said was how he was the next dominant player that would no doubt notch 5-7 Slams. Then Nadal beats Fed and this message board is aflood with people claiming Nadal is the GOAT. Every time someone wins something everybody thinks they are the best, thus the Canas or Karlovic example. Give it a rest...10 in a row is a pipe dream...6 in a row would be a ridiculous but at least plausible debate as it gives you something to dissect in the future but guessing whats going to happen at the 2012 Wimbledon is like guessing whats going to happen in the 2012 Presidential election...who knows what new candidates will pop up in response to whatever 2008's President will do...

8PAQ
02-22-2007, 01:37 PM
Federer won't win more than 7 or 8 Wimbledons. Guys like Andy Murray will start owning him in a few years. It is just a matter of time.

I think Fed will face a very tough competition in coming years. Way tougher than what Sampras had in 1997-2000 when he kept on winning Wimbledons. Even this year he might have some 5 setters at Wimbledon/USO.

All I can say is that Murray scares me. I think in a few years he will become a better player than anyone that Federer or Sampras, for that matter, ever faced.

ACE of Hearts
02-22-2007, 01:42 PM
I am not buying into the Murray hype just yet.I dont see Murray owning Fed in the next 2 to 3 years.I am not one of those in the bandwagon.

Moose Malloy
02-22-2007, 01:54 PM
Even this year he might have some 5 setters at Wimbledon/USO.


wanna bet?

All I can say is that Murray scares me. I think in a few years he will become a better player than anyone that Federer or Sampras, for that matter, ever faced

now you can get a sense of what McEnroe was like. If he was born in this era, he'd be Murray. With a nasty lefty serve & better volleys. And so ridiculously competitive. I don't think anyone a few years ago would predict a player like Murray, who junkballs, doesn't have a big serve, have much raw athleticism, or hit that many winners would be able to do well among "modern" players. Yet he does.

8PAQ
02-22-2007, 01:58 PM
I am not buying into the Murray hype just yet.I dont see Murray owning Fed in the next 2 to 3 years.I am not one of those in the bandwagon.

I was thinking 2010 is where Murray would start the ownage. 2007-2009 he will get closer and closer every year, winning and losing some.

But there are other challengers coming as well. Look at Sam Querrey. He just had 22 aces in a match with a scoreline that would usually result in single digit number of aces for guys like Roddick. Go check the results! I think Sam is serving better than Roddick was at same age. In 2010 Sam might make Goran look like Dementieva.

So my point is Fed has tough a road ahead.

OrangeOne
02-22-2007, 02:03 PM
If it sounds crazy.... it probably is :)

As for the whole "he did it this year, therefore, therefore, therefore" argument, people maybe be interested in reading into the so-called Gambler's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy).

Now I know tennis isn't random in the short term, but I'd argue for next year and beyond, and certainly 2009 and beyond, there are so many unknowns in place (Fed injured / Fed Retired / Fed still playing amazing / Fed just not at top level / Fed emtionally affected / Other players on scene / Current players have stepped up / etc etc etc) that it does become largely random, which means that the Gambler's fallacy comes into play in regards to Fed / Not-Fed predictions.


The gambler's fallacy often takes one of these (often contradictory) forms:
A particular outcome of a random (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random) event is more likely to occur because it has happened recently ("run of good luck");
A particular outcome is more likely to occur because it not happened recently ("law of averages" or "its my turn now");Similarly
A particular outcome is less likely to occur because it has happened recently ("law of averages" or "exhausted its luck");
A particular outcome is less likely to occur because it not happened recently ("run of bad luck");

Moose Malloy
02-22-2007, 02:08 PM
Look at Sam Querrey. He just had 22 aces in a match with a scoreline that would usually result in single digit number of aces for guys like Roddick. Go check the results! I think Sam is serving better than Roddick was at same age. In 2010 Sam might make Goran look like Dementieva.


lets not go too far. Sam's footspeed makes Goran's look like Allen Iverson. Del Potro has more upside than Querey at this point(he's younger & higher ranked)

And Karlovic is the worst returner, I think Goran could drop 20 on him today(Goran aced Rios 25 times in a senior match last year, & Rios returns a hell of a lot better than Karlovic)

aces aren't the best way to determine how well one is serving. goran served way more aces than sampras yet he didn't win 7 wimbedons.

dukemunson
02-22-2007, 02:18 PM
If it sounds crazy.... it probably is :)

As for the whole "he did it this year, therefore, therefore, therefore" argument, people maybe be interested in reading into the so-called Gambler's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy).

Now I know tennis isn't random in the short term, but I'd argue for next year and beyond, and certainly 2009 and beyond, there are so many unknowns in place (Fed injured / Fed Retired / Fed still playing amazing / Fed just not at top level / Fed emtionally affected / Other players on scene / Current players have stepped up / etc etc etc) that it does become largely random, which means that the Gambler's fallacy comes into play in regards to Fed / Not-Fed predictions.

[/LIST]

lets not go too far. Sam's footspeed makes Goran's look like Allen Iverson. Del Potro has more upside than Querey at this point(he's younger & higher ranked)

And Karlovic is the worst returner, I think Goran could drop 20 on him today(Goran aced Rios 25 times in a senior match last year, & Rios returns a hell of a lot better than Karlovic)

aces aren't the best way to determine how well one is serving. goran served way more aces than sampras yet he didn't win 7 wimbedons.


Two good posts...Talk of 2012 is definetely like going to Vegas and in your mind computing before putting the first chip down that if this goes this way, and red 17 pops up and....i'll be up 42 grand...and yes...karlovics returns are futures level so lets not be putting Querrey in Wimbledon 2110 talks (though the more I see the more im starting to think he can have a Dent like career (5-6 years peaking at 21 and always a 28-32 seed at the majors)

FedererUberAlles
02-22-2007, 02:32 PM
Awww man stop hiding the gravity bonnnnngggggg, we just all need a hit so we can see what you're saying.

federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 02:50 PM
now you can get a sense of what McEnroe was like. If he was born in this era, he'd be Murray. With a nasty lefty serve & better volleys. And so ridiculously competitive. I don't think anyone a few years ago would predict a player like Murray, who junkballs, doesn't have a big serve, have much raw athleticism, or hit that many winners would be able to do well among "modern" players. Yet he does.

Using Murray as an example of how well McEnroe could do today isnt really a good one if you are trying to make a case for McEnroe doing really well today. What has Murray done so great? He hasnt even made a grand slam quarter yet, he won a couple dinky tournaments so big deal. He had a win over Federer, but everyone knows Federer was worn out and tanked the match. He has wins over Roddick but lots of guys have wins over Roddick on hard courts now despite Roddick being really highly ranked. He has a long way to go since he really has proven very little of anything yet. If I was wanting to make a case for a past player and how well he would have done today I would use a player who has done alot more then Murray ever has.

I am not saying McEnroe in his prime couldnt be a top 3 players today or do really well. Murray doing so well isnt an indicator that means or shows much though. Unless you consider 4th rounds of grand slams great success for somebody who wants to be at the very top.

8PAQ
02-22-2007, 04:11 PM
lets not go too far. Sam's footspeed makes Goran's look like Allen Iverson. Del Potro has more upside than Querey at this point(he's younger & higher ranked)

And Karlovic is the worst returner, I think Goran could drop 20 on him today(Goran aced Rios 25 times in a senior match last year, & Rios returns a hell of a lot better than Karlovic)

aces aren't the best way to determine how well one is serving. goran served way more aces than sampras yet he didn't win 7 wimbedons.


Two good posts...Talk of 2012 is definetely like going to Vegas and in your mind computing before putting the first chip down that if this goes this way, and red 17 pops up and....i'll be up 42 grand...and yes...karlovics returns are futures level so lets not be putting Querrey in Wimbledon 2110 talks (though the more I see the more im starting to think he can have a Dent like career (5-6 years peaking at 21 and always a 28-32 seed at the majors)

I was talking about today's match against J. Benneteau. I don't know how good of returner Benneteau is but 22 aces in match with only that many serving games is quite amazing for an 18 year old. I don't wonna spoil anything so please go and check the results.

MTF07
02-22-2007, 10:43 PM
All I can say is that Murray scares me. I think in a few years he will become a better player than anyone that Federer or Sampras, for that matter, ever faced.
What crack are you smoking and may I have some?

justineheninhoogenbandfan
02-22-2007, 11:13 PM
Federer won't win more than 7 or 8 Wimbledons. Guys like Andy Murray will start owning him in a few years. It is just a matter of time.

I think Fed will face a very tough competition in coming years. Way tougher than what Sampras had in 1997-2000 when he kept on winning Wimbledons. Even this year he might have some 5 setters at Wimbledon/USO.

All I can say is that Murray scares me. I think in a few years he will become a better player than anyone that Federer or Sampras, for that matter, ever faced.

Murray will start "owning" Federer when purple pigs starts to fly in the sky.

moxio
02-22-2007, 11:18 PM
I really doubt it.

caulcano
02-23-2007, 01:06 AM
Federer won't win more than 7 or 8 Wimbledons. Guys like Andy Murray will start owning him in a few years. It is just a matter of time.

I think Fed will face a very tough competition in coming years. Way tougher than what Sampras had in 1997-2000 when he kept on winning Wimbledons. Even this year he might have some 5 setters at Wimbledon/USO.

All I can say is that Murray scares me. I think in a few years he will become a better player than anyone that Federer or Sampras, for that matter, ever faced.

I personally don't think Murray will be a better player (i.e have more GS) than SAMP or FED. Murray is not even close to winning a GS at the moment, maybe in 2008/2009 so he'll be 21/22.

In your own admission the competition will be very tough in coming years, which suggests there won't be a dominant player in the forseeable future. Which means Murray will have to win something like 2 majors for the next 8 years, which I can't see happening.

caulcano
02-23-2007, 01:09 AM
Anyway, back to the original question.

FED can win 10 straight WIMBs but won't. Like many others, I think he'll win 7-8 (going for 8 to beat SAMPs record).