PDA

View Full Version : do you think Federer will lose focus like Sampras after he wins his 15th slam?


The Gorilla
02-23-2007, 06:16 PM
. .

drakulie
02-23-2007, 06:20 PM
I think if he ever does win a 15th slam it will only drive him more.

grizzly4life
02-23-2007, 06:28 PM
i'm no expert, but sampras never seemed to like much associated with the tour or being a celebrity (edit: maybe having a hot wife)... i think roger loves alot of it (or he's a good actor). i mean, who would spend 10-12 hours (or whatever) at a press event in china??

35ft6
02-23-2007, 06:38 PM
Sampras "lost focus" before his 14th Slam. He retired immediately after his last Slam win.

Polaris
02-23-2007, 06:43 PM
Too early to say. Federer probably has his hands full focussing on his 11th Slam. That is not a certainty by any means.

The Gorilla
02-23-2007, 06:48 PM
I think, barring injury it is a certainty.

bluecephas
02-23-2007, 09:04 PM
I don't think he will. If Sampras knew that his record would be threatened so early, he wouldn't have skipped the AO or retired that early. It was not that he couldn't do it anymore, it's just he wasn't willing anymore. Fed has the advantage of coming after Sampras in that he can keep on playing until the record is broken and he can learn from Sampras' "mistakes" : take French more seriously; take the none slams more seriously, don't break the record by 1 or 2, beat it by 5 or more.

drakulie
02-23-2007, 09:07 PM
^^^ Sampras took the French very seriously. Just because he didn't win it, doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously.

bluecephas
02-23-2007, 09:10 PM
But.....I think Fed should retire while he's on top, so he won't live the rest of his life thinking about those last 2-3 years of his career being owned by the young guns. It's inevitable for anybody. The body "ages" faster in this sport.

Nick Irons
02-23-2007, 09:10 PM
I believe this will be Rogers last year of dominance.

He'll get Wimby (and I believe he just may get the French if Rafa isn't healthy) but I predict a Murray U.S. Open as Brad will get the hat trick

I believe Federer will win more slams, but they will not come with such ease and precision as they have up unitl now.

His final slam count ?

16

bluecephas
02-23-2007, 09:19 PM
^^^ Sampras took the French very seriously. Just because he didn't win it, doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously.

I agree Pete took the French very seriously. Are you kidding, this is Pete we're talking about; he took all slams very seriously. But it's all relative. Sampras won the AO multiple times, but we all know that was not as important to him as winning W or USO.

lambielspins
02-23-2007, 09:23 PM
It is hard to say. We will just have to wait until sometime in 2008 when that record 15th slam comes and see how he responds.

ACE of Hearts
02-23-2007, 09:31 PM
Barring injury, 18 slams

lethalfang
02-24-2007, 02:59 AM
Judging by how emotional and excited Federer got for each "routine" grand slam title he has won, I don't think he will ever lose his focus on tennis.

Grimjack
02-24-2007, 05:28 AM
Sampras never lost focus.

In his prime, he was the best fastcourt player on the planet, and proved it by winning at both Wimbledon and the USO most of the time. He was never outright dominant year-round like Fed is -- he dominated when the courts were fast, and was less effective at slower venues.

At the end, he was STILL the best fastcourt player on the planet, and proved it by winning the last USO he ever played -- which, by that time, was the only fastcourt slam left.

But he didn't "lose focus" and start losing Wimbledons. Wimbledon slowed down, and rendered him irrelevant. His archaic S&V game was completely out of place at the modern, slow courts of Wimby. Suddenly there, just like at the AO and French, he was now target practice for the new era of extreme-grip passing shot monster baseliners. When they slowed it down, he didn't slowly discover it got tougher to win there. He went from reigning decade-long grip of dominance to nobody, instantly. And he never got it back.

If he'd lost focus, he'd never have won that last Open. What happened, quite simply, is that the game passed him by at all but the fastest venues.

Will that happen to Fed? Doubtful, because his game is versatile enough for him to look dominant on every surface out there right now, from slow to lightning fast. But there are plenty of other reasons he must eventually decline -- including a legitimate loss of focus (unlike the made-up one people attribute to Pete to make him look better). It's just a race to see how soon they hit.

federerfanatic
02-24-2007, 06:15 AM
Federer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.

Alexandros
02-24-2007, 07:52 AM
Sampras never lost focus.

But he didn't "lose focus" and start losing Wimbledons. Wimbledon slowed down, and rendered him irrelevant. His archaic S&V game was completely out of place at the modern, slow courts of Wimby. Suddenly there, just like at the AO and French, he was now target practice for the new era of extreme-grip passing shot monster baseliners. When they slowed it down, he didn't slowly discover it got tougher to win there. He went from reigning decade-long grip of dominance to nobody, instantly. And he never got it back.

But there are plenty of other reasons he must eventually decline -- including a legitimate loss of focus (unlike the made-up one people attribute to Pete to make him look better). It's just a race to see how soon they hit.

He stopped winning Wimbledon in 2001, where he lost to Federer. Does Federer fall under your definition of an extreme-grip passing shot monster baseliner?? Federer served and volleyed most of the match, as did Sampras.

35ft6
02-24-2007, 09:37 AM
Another thing that Federer has going for him, and it's actually a scary thought, and people on these boards have brought it up, is how much he seems to love being at the top. Remember when Pete talked about being relieved that he lost in the US Open so he wouldn't have to be the defending champion any more? And how Connors ripped him a new one for saying that? Yes, after he lost to Edberg in the final, was it next year?, that's when he said he wanted to win every Grand Slam possible, but still, that comment says something about Pete.

I don't think Pete enjoyed being number 1 nearly as much as Roger. He really had a love hate relationship with the press; he had to say "I let my play do the talking" one too many times. He was criticized for being boring and I think justifiably so, he really didn't do much to expand the games fan base in the US when he was on top. Granted, it's not like he was hiding all this great charisma, but homeboy didn't even try.

He did enjoy winning Slams, but I don't think he enjoyed the criticism and actually being number 1. Especially when there's Agassi there, not nearly as accomplished, earning way more money in endorsements and getting genuine love from the fans all over the world. I really think Pete had the attitude that his Slam record would be his way of having the last laugh, but Federer looks to be ruining that for him.

Not sure if I can think of anybody who JUST SEEMS TO LOVE being number one as much as Federer. The guy seems to feel zero pressure although he did look awfully tight in the French Open finals last year...

illkhiboy
02-24-2007, 09:58 AM
Sampras never lost focus.

In his prime, he was the best fastcourt player on the planet, and proved it by winning at both Wimbledon and the USO most of the time. He was never outright dominant year-round like Fed is -- he dominated when the courts were fast, and was less effective at slower venues.

At the end, he was STILL the best fastcourt player on the planet, and proved it by winning the last USO he ever played -- which, by that time, was the only fastcourt slam left.

But he didn't "lose focus" and start losing Wimbledons. Wimbledon slowed down, and rendered him irrelevant. His archaic S&V game was completely out of place at the modern, slow courts of Wimby. Suddenly there, just like at the AO and French, he was now target practice for the new era of extreme-grip passing shot monster baseliners. When they slowed it down, he didn't slowly discover it got tougher to win there. He went from reigning decade-long grip of dominance to nobody, instantly. And he never got it back.

If he'd lost focus, he'd never have won that last Open. What happened, quite simply, is that the game passed him by at all but the fastest venues.

Will that happen to Fed? Doubtful, because his game is versatile enough for him to look dominant on every surface out there right now, from slow to lightning fast. But there are plenty of other reasons he must eventually decline -- including a legitimate loss of focus (unlike the made-up one people attribute to Pete to make him look better). It's just a race to see how soon they hit.

I kind of agree with your basic analysis, but...Sampras only lost at Wimbledon the last 2 years he played there. In 2001, the court was still relatively fast, after all, Ivanesivic, Rafter and Henman did fine. Surely Sampras' slow court record is better than of all of those players.

AndyC
02-24-2007, 10:01 AM
When Roger loses his focus will to an extent depend on how fast he accumulates the slams. In winning the AO this year he has surpassed Pete in terms of number of slams won at the same age. If as expected Roger wins 3 out of 4 slams this year then he'll be two up on Pete at the age of 27.

Remember too that Pete only won 4 more slams in the 5 years he played on after the age of 27. The thing is Roger looks good for winning 2 slams a year up till 29 at this point in time. At that rate he would have 16 slams in total at 29. And that would still give him another 2-3 years of being at the top of the game if not at number 1 to try and add a few more.

This is however pure speculation. He might get injured over the next few years but the way I see it he can dominate the tour for another 2/3 years and by then he might already have surpassed 15 slams.

BeckerFan
02-24-2007, 10:28 AM
No, I don't think he'll lose focus. There are far to many other records to keep Federer busy. I suspect he may get the most satisfaction from breaking the record for most Wimbledon titles shared by Renshaw and Sampras (7), and also the record for most consecutive Wimbledon titles held by Renshaw alone (6). The number one ranking is also very important to Federer, so I see him making a real effort to surpass Sampras's 286 weeks at the top AND his six straight years at the top (a record shared by Tilden).

And even if he does all that, there's always the Grand Slam ...

FedFan_2007
02-24-2007, 10:56 AM
People he still only has 10 actual slam wins. Let's focus our karmic energy on helping Roger win #11 at Roland Garros!

scineram
02-24-2007, 03:38 PM
Let's focus our karmic energy on helping Roger win #11 at Roland Garros!

I will do exactly that.:smile:

slice bh compliment
02-24-2007, 03:43 PM
Federer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.

Wow, you are really a federer fanatic, federerfanatic.

slice bh compliment
02-24-2007, 03:50 PM
Sampras "lost focus" before his 14th Slam. He retired immediately after his last Slam win.

Good point. Well, maybe that was not focus. Maybe that was just fitness or something. I still cannot believe he pulled that last one out against Agassi. Or the final at Wimbledon againt Pat Rafter, who kinda had him early in that match.

As a Pete fan, I look back and shake my head at the two Sunday US Open final losses after tough semis on Saturday. Safin and Hewitt. Man, that hurt a lot more than any other loss, including the one to Edberg in 92, was it?

ANyway, back to Rog.....yeah, I think it will not be a matter of focus. I think he will start losing to the next generation of quick big guys who can control the middle and get to net before Roger does. Kind of a Roger/Becker/Monfils/Safin hybrid.....I think that's the future.
Roger's woes in Slams will start happening with some regularity in the year 2009. Maybe 2010.

Well, what the hell do I know? But it is fun to sit here and pontificate.

holera
02-24-2007, 05:36 PM
i don't think slower courts ended sampras' reign at wimbledon. i've watched the federer-sampras match several times, and the court was fast. both players served and volleyed. sampras was just too old.

federer seems more dedicated to being the best. federer won 3 of 4 majors twice, but his backhand is clearly better than it was in 04, and he seems to be trying to be more agressive on returns. federer also works on improving on clay so he can beat nadal on clay.
i didn't see the same kind of thing from sampras.

slice bh compliment
02-24-2007, 10:27 PM
I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!

psamp14
02-24-2007, 11:35 PM
I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!

LOL! :) drunk and you wound up at the TW boards...;)

BeckerFan
02-25-2007, 12:38 AM
Samprass Underpants ... that's brilliant!

I think I've finally found my entrepreneurial calling.

You will of course get a cut of the profits.

All we need is Pete himself to sign on as endorser/model ...

35ft6
02-25-2007, 03:05 AM
I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!When I'm drunk I start hitting on fat chicks, so I excuse you for your careless thoughts...:-(

baros
02-25-2007, 04:24 AM
sampras didn't loose focus he was just old and wanted to go out on top.

Ethan04
02-25-2007, 11:23 AM
sampras played tennis because he enjoyed winning. when he couldn't win, he lost interest. federer simply loves tennis on and off court. he loves the dream life he lives in now.

Nick Irons
02-25-2007, 11:29 AM
sampras's played because he enjoyed winning. when he couldn't win, he lost interest. federer simply loves tennis on and off court. he loves the dream life he lives in now.

What are you implying with this ? That you know why 'Sampras' played and that Roger is in 'love' with tennis more ?

Sampras got old. He had one last thrillrun with the Open and went out on top. Something tells me, if was continuing to win in 2002, 2003, 2004 he'd still be playing.

Ethan04
02-25-2007, 04:56 PM
It isn't about age. Agassi shows true love and played until his body failed on him at age of 36. To compete and to be better, is what Agassi about. see, Sampras is about to win and to dominate. It isn't love to tennis. When he couldn't win and dominate, he left the game and isolated himself from tennis. He got bored of retirement and play tons and tons of golf then back to senior tour searching for some old day glory. Agree, if he kept winning and dominating, he would still play. This isn't show of love or lost of interest. He quitted simply can't win anymore.

tennishead93
02-25-2007, 05:20 PM
Federer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.
holy crap that would be amazing

Phil
02-25-2007, 06:47 PM
^^^ Sampras took the French very seriously. Just because he didn't win it, doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously.

I liked/like Pete and followed his career from almost the very beginning, but from what I can recall, he wasn't all that serious about RG. I had the impression that he just "figured" that he'd eventually win it, along with everything else that he was winning at the time. But after a few year of early round losses, he blew it off to focus on those majors that he was sure he could win (the other 3).

If he had taken RG so seriously, he would have played the entire clay court season in Europe instead of arriving in DeGaulle Airport a couple days before the event. He would have gotten himself a coach who has an expertise playing on the clay...he would have bought himself a clay court...he could have done a lot. Only in the last couple years of his career, when he started thinking about his final legacy in the game, did he start making public statements about how "serious" he was-though that talk didn't translate into much more effort, that I could see.

tt2003
02-25-2007, 08:55 PM
federer wants at least 30 grand slams

BlackSheep
02-25-2007, 09:26 PM
I think that Fed has more drive then Pete. Does Fed have to get better now...No! But he does it and that is why he is killing everyone.

His final slam count will be 19 or 20.

sarpmas
02-25-2007, 10:14 PM
Look, having a benchmark to follow doesn't hurt. Sampras and the rest have set the standard, it makes it easier for Federer to stay focus in his attempts to break these records.

In any case, I don't think slam count is the priority for Federer. It should be the coming French Open. This is THE BIG ONE. If he gets that, he will have achieved 4 consecutive Slams. This will be the beginning of all great things to come because ultimately, THE GRAND SLAM will be seriously within his reach. Federer can really cement his status as the GOAT if he gets the French.

If Federer is to lose focus after THAT, I'm not surprised! :) For those who still want to nitpick, he can still focus on breaking the year end no. 1 record, or even, the h2h against Nadal.

35ft6
02-26-2007, 01:49 AM
^ I'd be pretty surprised if Fed never wins the French. He's been the 2nd best clay courter for a while, really. All he needs is a little luck and maybe not even that.

caulcano
02-26-2007, 02:18 AM
I don't think he will. If Sampras knew that his record would be threatened so early, he wouldn't have skipped the AO or retired that early. It was not that he couldn't do it anymore, it's just he wasn't willing anymore. Fed has the advantage of coming after Sampras in that he can keep on playing until the record is broken and he can learn from Sampras' "mistakes" : take French more seriously; take the none slams more seriously, don't break the record by 1 or 2, beat it by 5 or more.

I agree.

Learning from a great like SAMP will give FED another advantage on his assault on the record books. If he wins this years calendar GS, I'm pretty sure he'll know he's capable of getting 20.

caulcano
02-26-2007, 02:25 AM
Federer has to decide if he would rather win 20 slams or 28 slams. In another thread I detailed the motvation behind either. If he wants to, he certainly is capable of 28 slams-7 Australian Opens, 3 French Opens, 10 Wimbledons, and 8 U.S Opens. However he might be satisfied with only 20 slams-5 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 8 Wimbledons, 6 U.S Opens, depending upon how he views the incentives of either collection of titles.

I'd love FED to get to 28, but can't see it happening. 18 more GS in his remaining years in tennis is just near-impossible, imho.

caulcano
02-26-2007, 02:33 AM
I just got back from a really fun night out with the wife and several friends....and I'm kind of drunk, so take this with a grain of salt........but I'm feeling like Pete would rush the hell out of Roger and **** him off on a faster court. US Open final? Oh, yeah, I'd pay triple-retail for a ticket to that. I'd even wear a pair of Sergio Tacchini shorts with spandex underpants and a Greek warrior on the chest ... Samprass circa 1991!

LOL. Horrific sight but funny nonetheless.