PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer more likely to win 28 slams or only 20?


federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 03:53 PM
I think the most likely number of slams for Federer the great is either 28 or 20. I will explain why.

He will want 28 slams perhaps because it would mean-10 Wimbledons, not just breaking the record but the first to do double digits which he knows he would always be the first to do even if somebody breaks his record in the future he will always be the first guy to double digits then. 8 U.S Opens, not just breaking the open era record but all time including pre-open era. 7 Australian Opens, not just breaking the open era record but all time including pre-open era. 3 French Opens, enough to be an all time great on clay, not just a great player on clay as if you win 3 times at the French it makes you one of the all time greats on clay.

Or he will be satisfied with this following and not have the extra motivation to reach those heights. 8 Wimbledons, breaking the record of Sampras at 7 but not pushing for the first to be double digits. 6 U.S Opens, breaking open era record of 5 but not pre-open era record of 7. 5 Austalian Opens, breaking open era record of 4 but not pre-open era record of 6. 1 French Open, enough to compelete career slam and maybe calender slam, but not enough to be all time great on clay, just a great player on clay.

I am going to try to make this into a poll. I am not sure if it will go through but if it went through right then you can vote. I am not quite sure how to make the polls here.

Swissv2
02-22-2007, 04:02 PM
good to speculate, but at this point it is ONLY speculation.

when we speak in terms of "all things considered...Fed will have 28 GS" then you might have not even considered the "all things" including:

Health
Fitness
Other players
Personal issues
A bit of luck
etc"all things considered (going well)" then Fed at least has a chance of breaking Pete's record.

8PAQ
02-22-2007, 04:04 PM
Please don't be a Nadalgirl26. Please don't. She was saying same crap about Nadal last year, except with some intentional spelling mistakes.

shrakkie
02-22-2007, 04:06 PM
Only?only? Only 20?!

federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 04:19 PM
Fed has won 10 slams the last 3.5 years. He has just as much improvement left as the younger players and can easily play atleast another 6 years. He also will not have a personal nemisis that keeps him from winning the French Open ever like Nadal forever. Nadal now struggles vs Roger head to head more and is already burning out so Federer will have more chances to win the French then in the past in addition to the other 3. 28 is very difficult but very realistic for Roger, 20 is quite likely in fact.

Polaris
02-22-2007, 05:33 PM
He has just as much improvement left as the younger players and can easily play atleast another 6 years.
What? You are saying that Federer has as much scope for improvement as someone like Djokovic or Murray. This is absurd. Besides, 6 years is an eternity in tennis terms.
He also will not have a personal nemisis that keeps him from winning the French Open ever like Nadal forever. It is amazing that you write "will not have a personal nemesis" with such certainty. As a poster already pointed out, this reminds everyone of nadalgirl26. It might not be a coincidence after all.
28 is very difficult but very realistic for Roger, 20 is quite likely in fact.He is currently at 10. 11 or 12 is difficult enough. Winning a GS is a function of a lot of things: talent (check), mental game (check), health (don't know), injury (don't know), an opponent on a hot streak (don't know), luck (don't know). If you really are a federer fanatic, as opposed to a troll, you would probably be appreciative of every single GS win, rather than assigning random targets as if this were a game of marbles.

Polaris
02-22-2007, 05:43 PM
I wish TW could do something about people opening multiple accounts. We have a role-playing circus on our hands. Here is the latest: capriatifanatic = federerfanatic. Same style, same unintentional spelling mistakes.

The number of accounts this user has is anybody's guess.

hewittboy
02-22-2007, 07:10 PM
I would guess around 26 slams. Since 26 is closer to 28 then 20 I will vote 28.

Zimbo
02-22-2007, 07:21 PM
Still to early to know for sure but I would bet my life savings that he won't win close to 28.

Fedexeon
02-22-2007, 07:22 PM
Winning 28 slams is beyong any mortals' abilities.

Nick Irons
02-22-2007, 07:46 PM
Roger will win Wimby only this year (after Aussie). RG is Rafa's and the US Open will be Andy Murray

federerfanatic
02-22-2007, 07:51 PM
Rafa will win the butt picking contest at Roland Garros. Federer will win the trophy. Murray wont win the U.S Open. Federer wont show up tired for the match like he did in Cincinnati if they play there.

SoBad
02-22-2007, 07:59 PM
My sweet Safin will.......................slams.................. ............, so no more slams for Federer, sorry!

MTF07
02-22-2007, 10:22 PM
Are you kidding me? Those numbers are absurd. 28 slams?? I dont think so, nor do I think he'll even approach that number.

caulcano
02-23-2007, 01:18 AM
Are you kidding me? Those numbers are absurd. 28 slams?? I dont think so, nor do I think he'll even approach that number.

Indeed, 28 is absurd, considering he's only won 10 atm.

With only 2 option a would have thought 16 or 22 would have been a better number.

FedFan_2007
02-23-2007, 08:46 AM
Another ******** troll thread. Fed will be lucky to win 15 slams.

dozu
02-23-2007, 08:50 AM
i voted 28, double up the current record and put the argument to rest, once and for all.

but maybe not, because still, his rivals are weaker..... sigh... what can you do.

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 08:53 AM
I think it would something like 15.

BeckerFan
02-23-2007, 08:57 AM
I don't understand how anyone can be making Grand Slam predictions yet.

As always, we won't have a good sense of how things stand for Roland Garros until well into the clay season. That part of the year, especially, is often filled with surprises.

The strongest bet is probably Federer at Wimbledon. But even then, who knows?

TheNatural
02-23-2007, 09:30 AM
if he plays 6 more years he could end up with 24 more slams, totalling 34. SO allowing for 6 losses, 28 seems like a good target. He can lose one slam a year for the next 6 years. For 20 slams , he can lose 14 slams in the next 6 years. Thats too mnay to lose. I think i'll vote 28.

fastdunn
02-23-2007, 09:36 AM
I think Federer has more chance to win French Open than
to achieve 6 year #1.

Budgerigar
02-23-2007, 09:47 AM
let's not count the bush before we get bird in hand, even 20 is a long way off.

noeledmonds
02-23-2007, 10:01 AM
This is madness? You realise Graf had 15 slams by this stage in her career (and 18 by the end of the equivalent year). She still only went on to win 22 and she had everything running in her favour (lack of competition [Seles], proved sucess at all the slams etc.). I think Federer will win about 15 or 16 slams.

dukemunson
02-23-2007, 10:32 AM
might just be the most ridiculous thread I have ever read...28!!! Please tell me that even the Federer fanatics are writing this in jest...he's won 10 out of the last 11 so that means he'll win at least 18 out of ght enxt 20...tennis, sports, life dont work like that....do you seriousaly suppose this level of domination can continue forever? Have a bit of common sense, I mean im all for an outrageous post or two perhaps followed up by a ridiculous prediction but to say this in any form of seriousness is delussion beyond comprehension...

lambielspins
02-23-2007, 04:39 PM
I think 20 slams for Fed will be easy. Whether he goes far beyond that or not I am not sure. We will see.

lambielspins
02-23-2007, 04:41 PM
I think Federer has more chance to win French Open than
to achieve 6 year #1.


Dont be silly, there is nobody coming up who will stop him from being #1 before the end of 2009 or 2010 anyway. Who would it be. Gael Monfils? Marcos Bhagdatis? Burnt out Nadal? Andy Roddick? Richard Gasquet? Andy Murray? Sorry no serious candidates. At the very least he will end the year #1 6 or 7 times

drakulie
02-23-2007, 04:52 PM
28 is out of the question.

27???? >>> Very attainable.

FedFan_2007
02-23-2007, 05:06 PM
I stand by my prediction. Fed will win slam #15 in 2009 at Wimbledon.

Slam #11 2007 FO
Slam #12 2007 Wimbledon
Slam #13 2007 US Open
Slam #14 2008 Wimbeldon

drakulie
02-23-2007, 05:10 PM
^^^^^ I sure hope so. I f he wins out 2007 we would be witness to one of the greatest achievements in this sport.

danb
02-23-2007, 10:27 PM
I think the most likely number of slams for Federer the great is either 28 or 20. I will explain why.

He will want 28 slams perhaps because it would mean-10 Wimbledons, not just breaking the record but the first to do double digits which he knows he would always be the first to do even if somebody breaks his record in the future he will always be the first guy to double digits then. 8 U.S Opens, not just breaking the open era record but all time including pre-open era. 7 Australian Opens, not just breaking the open era record but all time including pre-open era. 3 French Opens, enough to be an all time great on clay, not just a great player on clay as if you win 3 times at the French it makes you one of the all time greats on clay.

Or he will be satisfied with this following and not have the extra motivation to reach those heights. 8 Wimbledons, breaking the record of Sampras at 7 but not pushing for the first to be double digits. 6 U.S Opens, breaking open era record of 5 but not pre-open era record of 7. 5 Austalian Opens, breaking open era record of 4 but not pre-open era record of 6. 1 French Open, enough to compelete career slam and maybe calender slam, but not enough to be all time great on clay, just a great player on clay.

I am going to try to make this into a poll. I am not sure if it will go through but if it went through right then you can vote. I am not quite sure how to make the polls here.


You are far fetching... I think it will be more like 15 or 16 grand slams - best case scenario for Federer.

lambielspins
02-23-2007, 10:54 PM
15-16 slams is more like the absolute worst case scenario. To say 15-16 is a best case scenario is ludricious.

BeckerFan
02-24-2007, 09:33 AM
15-16 slams is more like the absolute worst case scenario. To say 15-16 is a best case scenario is ludricious.

10 is the 'absolute worst case scenario.'

Tragedy has been known to strike in tennis.

It would be ludicrous to assume anything.

severus
03-05-2010, 02:14 PM
15-16 slams is more like the absolute worst case scenario. To say 15-16 is a best case scenario is ludricious.

Hmm..........

freedomtennis
03-05-2010, 02:18 PM
10 is the 'absolute worst case scenario.'

Tragedy has been known to strike in tennis.

It would be ludicrous to assume anything.

haha he has 16 now

himynameisNIKE
03-05-2010, 02:41 PM
I stand by my prediction. Fed will win slam #15 in 2009 at Wimbledon.

Slam #11 2007 FO
Slam #12 2007 Wimbledon
Slam #13 2007 US Open
Slam #14 2008 Wimbeldon

:shock: oh my

stapler
03-05-2010, 02:44 PM
I stand by my prediction. Fed will win slam #15 in 2009 at Wimbledon.

Slam #11 2007 FO
Slam #12 2007 Wimbledon
Slam #13 2007 US Open
Slam #14 2008 Wimbeldon


http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4884/motherofgodsupertrooper.jpg

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-05-2010, 02:44 PM
Jesus, unban him that is an epic win.

Lotto
03-05-2010, 02:47 PM
I stand by my prediction. Fed will win slam #15 in 2009 at Wimbledon.

Slam #11 2007 FO
Slam #12 2007 Wimbledon
Slam #13 2007 US Open
Slam #14 2008 Wimbeldon


An absolutely RIDICULOUS prediction lol. Fair play..however, the FO 07 and Wimbledon 08 make it slightly imperfect im afraid :(

kishnabe
03-05-2010, 03:02 PM
I stand by my prediction. Fed will win slam #15 in 2009 at Wimbledon.

Slam #11 2007 Wimbledon
Slam #12 2007 US Open
Slam #13 2008 US Open
Slam #14 2009 French Open
Slam #15 2009 Wimbledon

WOW...JUST WOW:shock:!

TMF
03-05-2010, 03:05 PM
Too bad FedFan_2007 got banned. I want to hear his prediction after 2012.

Blade0324
03-05-2010, 03:44 PM
He's going to actually go backwards. The ITF and ATP are going to find out that he has actually been a cyborg sent from the future and take his slams away.

In all seriousness I don't see him winning even 20. I would actually hope that the number of slams he wins from here out is zero.

SLD76
03-05-2010, 03:58 PM
50 slams easily since as a GOAT candidate Fed will not lose in any slam finals, which he will undoubtedly reach.

plum556
03-05-2010, 04:49 PM
I think the total amount of slams Fed will ultimately win will have a lot to do whether or not Rafa can come back healthy and be at least close to the form he was in when he peaked. I think a healthy Rafa is the one tennis player out there right now that can give Fed a consistent threat at AO and Wimby. I think Rafa would be the favorite at RG. If Rafa does not come back to his true form.........I believe Fed will win at least 4-6 more slams. I believe he will have a lock on Wimby and close to a lock on AO. He will surely have players like Delpo and Murray and even the up and coming Cilic who would be very real threats at the USO. Even without Rafa there are quite a few players who could beat him on clay. I'm going to say that Fed will probably end up with about 20 slams before his career ends providing he stays healthy.

davey25
03-05-2010, 04:52 PM
Even without Rafa there are quite a few players who could beat him on clay.

I am not sure who you think those players are. Djokovic is the next best clay courter, but his level has fallen off and he isnt a big threat to beat Federer in a slam in the near future I dont think. Murray on clay, forget it. Del Potro could perhaps, but he would need to be fit and injury free, and that isnt a good bet for him neccessarily. Davydenko, no way. Soderling, I doubt it. Anyone I havent mentioned yet, no way. I know people will talk about something like Federer's close match with Haas last year but that was the day after Nadal lost. Put that match on any other day and I doubt it is even close.

As for the U.S Open I agree Federer will have competition there but that has been his most dominant slam probably overall, despite that he has won 1 more Wimbledon. He rarely has even been pushed too hard there. Last years final was mediocre for his standards and still could have won in 3 sets if he were a bit more focused in the 2nd. That was also vs Del Potro who I agree with you is probably his toughest competition of anyone he could face there. I dont think he is a shoo in there but I would certainly see him as the favorite at this moment.

plum556
03-05-2010, 05:24 PM
You are right Davey is used a poor choice of words..... I should have said threats against him on clay instead of beat him on clay. On the other hand I do believe a player like Soderling or Davydenko could upset Federer on clay. Players like Delpo,Murray and even Cilic could be very viable threats at USO and AO(IMO). Wimbledon is a total different game......here is where I feel he will have the most domination without a healthy Rafa. I am not going by what Fed has done in the past because things have changed dramatically in the last couple of years on the men's tour. In looking forward I still see Fed winning most of his remaining slams at Wimby and AO. I think he has a lot more chance of being upset at USO or RG. I'm no tennis expert or anything, it's just the way I see it.

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-05-2010, 05:29 PM
^ Agree. Wimby: Roddick's worse and worse, Rusty and Haas are perpetually injured, as is Rafa, Ferrero is too old, Wawrinka is a headcase and....those are about the only players that were ever any good.

DownTheLine
03-05-2010, 05:31 PM
I voted 28, but I would be shocked if he got around 22-24.

LetsGoRoddick
03-05-2010, 08:14 PM
Where is Roddick by the way? He's dropped off the face of the Earth. He better step up by Wimbledon, or there's practically nobody with even a smidgen of a chance to down Fed.

Ocean Drive
03-06-2010, 05:07 AM
LMFAO to the people voting for 28. What the hell were they thinking?

It is NOT happening.

Robert_parker
03-06-2010, 05:56 AM
i hope he'll make it to 20 though.

Rippy
03-06-2010, 06:36 AM
Where is Roddick by the way? He's dropped off the face of the Earth. He better step up by Wimbledon, or there's practically nobody with even a smidgen of a chance to down Fed.

Nadal?????

FlamEnemY
03-06-2010, 06:38 AM
20.

28 would be superhuman effort. I doubt anyone can keep their focus for so long, even if the player has the potential to win so many slams.

AAAA
03-06-2010, 06:49 AM
You are right Davey is used a poor choice of words..... I should have said threats against him on clay instead of beat him on clay. On the other hand I do believe a player like Soderling or Davydenko could upset Federer on clay. Players like Delpo,Murray and even Cilic could be very viable threats at USO and AO(IMO). Wimbledon is a total different game......here is where I feel he will have the most domination without a healthy Rafa. I am not going by what Fed has done in the past because things have changed dramatically in the last couple of years on the men's tour. In looking forward I still see Fed winning most of his remaining slams at Wimby and AO. I think he has a lot more chance of being upset at USO or RG. I'm no tennis expert or anything, it's just the way I see it.

Last year Del Potro was giving Federer more than he can handle at the FO before he ran out of gas and Haas almost had him.

Speaking generally the players who win the most do so not so much because their peak level is better than the rest but it's more a case of them being able to keep their performance level within their A-level band longer than the competition and long enough to be victorious over five sets more times than not.

Nicholas Warino
03-06-2010, 10:19 AM
I would put the chances of Federer winning 28 grand slams at 5-10%, which, if you think about it, is perhaps the most complimentary thing you could ever say about a male tennis player.

Federer is 28 years old and 12 slams away from 28. Perhaps more than any other player, he seems like he'll have a long peak and a slow fade form glory. Mentally, he seems to genuinely love playing tennis and has an elite athlete's focus on dominating his peers and history. Physically, he's incredibly durable and his style of game suggests he has the best chance at avoiding injuries. And his wide variety of tennis skills also points to him being able to adapt to changing circumstances.

If we give Federer a career trajectory of Agassi, then Federer's peak will last until he's 33, giving him 5 more peak years with 2 more contender years. If you definite Federer's peak as winning grand slams, then he's played 7 complete years and won 15 slams (I'm not counting the 2010 AO), which is just over 2 slams a year. If you extend that peak for 5 more years, then suddenly, Federer is at 26 slams. Give Federer a few more years of contender status, and he might squeak out 2 more slams over the last few years of his career, leaving him at 28.

Again, that's a lot of ifs: a long, slow decline from his historic peak, which isn't guaranteed; luck in grand slam tournaments; no freak injuries; and no resurgence from Nadal; and no unforeseen upcoming talent that will steal some of Federer's trophies.

But conversely, if Federer is actually playing the best tennis of his life (as he stated in AO), if mentally, he's more relaxed than ever (no more pressure of chasing Sampras), and if Nadal is fading, then perhaps Federer could increase his pace of GS. Would 6 or 7 grandslams in 2010-2011 be all that surprising?

Lotto
03-06-2010, 10:29 AM
lol....to win 28 he'd have to do the calender slam for the next 3 years and one more the following year...not gonna happen I'm afraid.

hoodjem
03-06-2010, 10:39 AM
28 would be superhuman effort. I doubt anyone can keep their focus for so long, even if the player has the potential to win so many slams.
Oh, it'll be easy with today's athleticism, training, racquet and string technology, the awesome coaches, and of course the world pool of great players today.

Today's players are "superhuman" compared to the old geezer, country club players with their silly wood racquets and gut strings of the 1950s and 1960s. Even the tennis balls weren't any good back then.

Even Roddick will win 20 slams . . . as soon as Fed retires.

Piece of cake.

TMF
03-06-2010, 11:08 AM
Oh, it'll be easy with today's athleticism, training, racquet and string technology, the awesome coaches, and of course the world pool of great players today.

Today's players are "superhuman" compared to the old geezer, country club players with their silly wood racquets and gut strings of the 1950s and 1960s. Even the tennis balls weren't any good back then.

Even Roddick will win 20 slams . . . as soon as Fed retires.

Piece of cake.

No. Today tennis exist b/c thanks to the technologies that can only makes it possible for the players to compete. Despite having over 6 billion people, athletes today were born with a defective genes. Going back to wooden racquet....tennis dies. Thanks to Rogerís Wilson k factor, it makes him look good. Put him back in Laverís time with the wooden racquet, would he win 16 GS? Nah, he would have hard time just to win 16 small titles against a country club. And yes, Roddick would look like a bush league.

FlamEnemY
03-06-2010, 12:48 PM
Oh, it'll be easy with today's athleticism, training, racquet and string technology, the awesome coaches, and of course the world pool of great players today.

Today's players are "superhuman" compared to the old geezer, country club players with their silly wood racquets and gut strings of the 1950s and 1960s. Even the tennis balls weren't any good back then.

Even Roddick will win 20 slams . . . as soon as Fed retires.

Piece of cake.

Um... Sorry, is this directed at me, because from the obvious sarcasm I see we have basically the same opinion :?

kishnabe
03-06-2010, 01:02 PM
Oh, it'll be easy with today's athleticism, training, racquet and string technology, the awesome coaches, and of course the world pool of great players today.

Today's players are "superhuman" compared to the old geezer, country club players with their silly wood racquets and gut strings of the 1950s and 1960s. Even the tennis balls weren't any good back then.

Even Roddick will win 20 slams . . . as soon as Fed retires.

Piece of cake.

Don't be sarcastic of the Modern Era.... the 1950's and 1960's tennis was awesome too. Rosewall and Laver videos are hard to find and fun to watch! However as you know every generation pool is physically better than the next...Talent wise every generation is equal!

Agassifan
03-07-2010, 12:05 AM
Fed will win a minimum of 73 slams. you heard it here first.

Love all
03-07-2010, 02:35 AM
Whats special with 73.
Then why not try a little more and make century as it is in Cricket.

plum556
03-07-2010, 03:10 AM
Last year Del Potro was giving Federer more than he can handle at the FO before he ran out of gas and Haas almost had him.

Speaking generally the players who win the most do so not so much because their peak level is better than the rest but it's more a case of them being able to keep their performance level within their A-level band longer than the competition and long enough to be victorious over five sets more times than not.

I would definitely agree with that assertation. I also believe the players that win the most are able to keep their composure and are mentally stronger when it counts most. I think the experience of winning so many matches gives them a big edge because when the going gets rough, they usually know what they need to do to prevail. The only problem is it does'nt always work.

Sentinel
03-07-2010, 03:45 AM
28.

20 is too little for Federer in this weak era.

Edit: i pity the haters who voted "only 20".

aphex
03-07-2010, 03:48 AM
Oh, it'll be easy with today's athleticism, training, racquet and string technology, the awesome coaches, and of course the world pool of great players today.

Today's players are "superhuman" compared to the old geezer, country club players with their silly wood racquets and gut strings of the 1950s and 1960s. Even the tennis balls weren't any good back then.

Even Roddick will win 20 slams . . . as soon as Fed retires.

Piece of cake.

No. Today tennis exist b/c thanks to the technologies that can only makes it possible for the players to compete. Despite having over 6 billion people, athletes today were born with a defective genes. Going back to wooden racquet....tennis dies. Thanks to Rogerís Wilson k factor, it makes him look good. Put him back in Laverís time with the wooden racquet, would he win 16 GS? Nah, he would have hard time just to win 16 small titles against a country club. And yes, Roddick would look like a bush league.

http://www.woahmyspace.com/Images/Owned/images/owned_0952.jpg