PDA

View Full Version : Roger Federer: 110 Titles -Mission impossible??


MG1
05-28-2012, 01:30 PM
Federer currently has 74 title and it seems impossible for him to break Jimmy 109 records but he said below after today's 1st round victory at RG:

Connors' record of tour-level titles may well remain beyond Federer's grasp. But the 16-time major champion can dream. "He had 109 career victories, I'm at 74 now," explained Federer. "Is it possible for me to equal Connors' titles? 110, that would be a round figure. That would be incredible. But that's a dream. I go year after year, and we'll see."

I think he really serious about playing 4-5 more years.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KVO6MafeE2M

MG1
05-28-2012, 01:31 PM
Fed needs 36 more titles

Cup8489
05-28-2012, 01:35 PM
Fed needs 36 more titles

He's gotten a good start, though. I said a few months ago that 80 was a good number to expect of him, and then he goes and wins 3 titles since then.. I didn't expect that.

Who knows, if he wins more than a half dozen this year, he'll certainly be off to a good start.

joeri888
05-28-2012, 01:52 PM
If he plays nothing but 250s from here he'll make it

The Bawss
05-28-2012, 02:00 PM
I love Fed but this is one record he will just have to keep his hands off of.

jakemcclain32
05-28-2012, 02:07 PM
I love Fed but this is one record he will just have to keep his hands off of.

Nope. He deserves it.

kishnabe
05-28-2012, 02:12 PM
If he had another 10 good years then yes.

Depends Connors bulk of titles were in the 250 and 500 category in terms of prestige.

Federer bulk of titles are from GS, and MS1000, WTF. He needs to play many 250 and 500 past his GS winning years to pass the record.

When Federer knows he isn't good enough to win a slam,he may retire and not bother with 250 and 500.

He wants to play till 2016.....but really? I think Federer will 85+ titiles.....110 seems far out.

goderer
05-28-2012, 02:18 PM
He will do it with ease.

Sid_Vicious
05-28-2012, 03:18 PM
I really don''t see it happening.

Rhino
05-28-2012, 03:22 PM
If he plays nothing but 250s from here he'll make it

Exactly. Connors played so many more tourneys. Imagine if Federer had played Newport for the last 13 years. That would be at least another 10 titles right there.

BlueClayIsRealClay
05-28-2012, 03:58 PM
If Fed was serious about playing in Rio, then why not.

The Bawss
05-28-2012, 04:58 PM
Not happening. he is playing less and less tournaments as it is. He might make 90, no more.

tennis_pro
05-28-2012, 05:03 PM
If he plays tons of worthless tournaments like Connors did in his day then yes.

timnz
05-28-2012, 05:29 PM
If he plays tons of worthless tournaments like Connors did in his day then yes.

Yes there were plenty of lower level tournaments in Connors CV. However, we must not forget that he made around 30 Masters 1000 level tournament finals alone. Add in 15 Grand Slam finals plus 3 Dallas WCT final matches plus the 1977 Masters Cup which he won.

So that makes 49 finals Connors made Masters 1000 level or greater. As you can see , Connors played and went very far in a lot of top events.

(Now that is just tournaments at that level he made the final - if you were to add up those he simply entered - it would be enormous. So, one has to be careful not to over state the case that Connors entered lots of 250 and 500 tournaments)

pc1
05-28-2012, 05:55 PM
You also have to take into account that while 109 is the official ATP record, the actual record is far beyond that. Many tournaments that Connors won are not counted in the ATP records for various reasons. It could be some old WCT tournaments or some tournaments in the other circuits Connors played in. Lendl also won a lot more than 109 tournaments also but I believe he has around 94 officially.

And while some may be annoyed at me, you have to look at the records of the older players before some tennis records were kept starting from around 1968. Tennis did exist before 1968 and guys like Tilden, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez among others won far more than 109 tournaments.

If baseball for example only kept records from 1968 on Babe Ruth wouldn't be heard of. Henry Aaron wouldn't have had 755 Home Runs which depending on some people's opinions may be still the Home Run record.

Before someone gets upset I'm just mentioning that the official records aren't real the correct ones. I'm not saying anyone is better than another.

Do I think Federer can win 36 more tournaments in his career? Well he's in the 70's now so he would have to win about 50% more of his current total. Possible but I think it'll be tough. One advantage is that he is very injury free over his career.

forzamilan90
05-28-2012, 06:37 PM
I don't think Federer will ever get to so many titles, he'll have to play some smaller tournaments a lot to gather a bunch of titles there and play for many more years. It's ok though, the big titles that he has are more than sufficient as they are.

heftylefty
05-28-2012, 10:24 PM
Note to Federer:
Start playing San Jose, Newport, and L.A.

Limpinhitter
05-28-2012, 10:27 PM
126 more titles and Federer can tie Laver's total.

Sentinel
05-28-2012, 10:56 PM
Freddie can't but Rafa definitely will will more than 110.

robow7
05-29-2012, 12:23 AM
Freddie can't but Rafa definitely will will more than 110.

Neither will 100 tourneys, Lendl's second place is safe as well.

Blinkism
05-29-2012, 02:23 AM
Why should he stop making goals for himself?

Good for him.

MG1
05-29-2012, 03:32 AM
Neither will 100 tourneys, Lendl's second place is safe as well.

If Fed plays till 2016 then its not safe.

MG1
07-08-2012, 09:36 PM
Another brick added in the wall of 110 :)

75 titles and counting!!

tudwell
07-08-2012, 09:52 PM
I probably wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but I could see Federer getting to 90 titles. He's not gonna pull anymore 2005s and win in the double digits, but he's been consistently picking up four to five titles for the last five years. And since his partnership with Annacone, he's focused more on smaller events, meaning he'll likely continue to pick those up even as he declines further and becomes less and less a threat at the slams.

psYcon
07-08-2012, 10:10 PM
this is just like saying I have $10,000 cash in $1 bills so I have 10000 bills. And my friend may have $50,000 cash in $100 bills so he has 500 of those. In the end my friend is still richer.

CRWV
07-08-2012, 10:21 PM
Let's assume he plays through 2016. Let's give him 1 slam a year (probably generous), 1.5 1K event a year (average, obviously), 2 tour finals.
That's 12 titles, giving him 86, meaning he would need six 250/500 events per year, meaning he would need to enter at least 8/year, most of the 1k events, and all the slams. That's at least 20 tournaments a year. Do you think a 30 year old man with 2 kids aged 3-7 (over that four years) could or would stay that busy? It would make Mirka a (very, very, very wealthy) single mother in practice about 60-70% of the time.

Let's say he goes 6 more years in pursuit of that title. Not being a fool, he would lighten his schedule slightly. Let's give him 5 more slams (very, very generous), 8 more masters. that's 89, meaning he needs 21 more low level events. meaning he needs 3.5/year, needing to enter 5-7 every year. That's 16-18 tournaments a year, which is plausible, but a very generous win rate. If he goes all Johnny Mac, and stops winning majors all together while fighting off back problems (already showing up, limiting his kick serve, etc.,.) that means he would need 6 wins a year for 6 years away from the majors.

Over the last 5 years, he has 22 tournament wins. At that rate (generous to grant a man as he moves into his 30s) he would need to play for about another 8 years. If his level drops slightly at 35, make it 9-10 years.

I think he could, but it's very unlikely, barring an unaccountable event (statistically). For instance, if Nadal retires at the end of the year citing ailing knees and whatnot, I think Fed will prove that he has been the second best clay courter of the past 10 years. If Djokovic proves 2011 was a fluke and Murray stops improving, Fed starts dominating the hard courts again. Etc., Etc.,.

Long story short, (opinion) I think it's probably not going to happen, but I'm adding the caveat of the above possibilities to intervene and give him the chance to dominate some more...

smoledman
07-09-2012, 01:24 AM
Honestly Connor's 109 titles is largely bogus filled up with 28-man draws, or even 8-man draws.

Love all
07-09-2012, 01:29 AM
Its the business end for Roger. Hardcourt season coming. He will grab 5 titles more.

timnz
07-09-2012, 02:17 AM
The atp is arbitary in what tournaments it lists. Connors actually has 149 titles, admittedly some had small fields, but not all of them.

forzamilan90
07-09-2012, 02:34 AM
It's impossible for Federer to get absolutely every single record there is, and this one is largely reliant on staying on tour for a very long amount of time, as well as racking up a lot of smaller venues. I think he get to at least 80, maybe 90 at best depending on how many years he stays on tour.

kOaMaster
07-09-2012, 02:43 AM
I think he doesn't care that much about this record. and I don't think federer will start playing the atp250 or less-tournaments just because of winning.

but I think he could if he wanted to. he just rather concentrated on the big stage.

ubermeyer
07-09-2012, 02:45 AM
110? No way. Unless he plays all the 250 tournaments, but that would be silly.

MG1
07-14-2012, 06:27 AM
110? No way. Unless he plays all the 250 tournaments, but that would be silly.

He can reach 100 if he plays till 2016 end which he has mentioned many times.

Raging Buddha
07-14-2012, 06:35 AM
He's won 8 titles since Basel 2011. That's only been around 9 months or so. And this year he's won 5, with Decoturf and indoor season coming, so he should definitely get more. Actually, double-digits for the entire year isn't out of the question if he is able to replicate his form from last year on indoor courts and win on NA hard courts, though I wouldn't hold my breath for it. And for double digits since Shanghai last year, he only needs to win 2 out of Olympics, Toronto, Cinci and USO.

110 overall, though...that's a completely different animal.

MG1
07-14-2012, 06:40 AM
He's won 8 titles since Basel 2011. That's only been around 9 months or so. And this year he's won 5, with Decoturf and indoor season coming, so he should definitely get more. Actually, double-digits for the entire year isn't out of the question if he is able to replicate his form from last year on indoor courts, though I wouldn't hold my breath for it. And for double digits since Shanghai last year, he only needs to win 2 out of Olympics, Toronto, Cinci and USO.

Exactly..

he can wins 5+ titles for next 3-4 yrs.

MG1
07-14-2012, 06:42 AM
For information..Roger is winning at least 4 titles from last 10 yrs so that is minimum that we can expect him.

Wilander Fan
07-14-2012, 07:02 AM
That 109 stat is a pointless arbitrary number and not really worthy of a record. Pro tennis back in Connors' time was essentially still a barn storming league and there were a ton of money tournaments.

Despite the history rich tradition, pro tennis has done such a poor job of keeping any purity in the game that there are almost no meaningful statistics that a person can go to and make comparisons. The closest thing to go by is the GS count since those events have always had a special prestige (maybe not the AO). Even the world number 1 stat is unreliable since they have changed that system up over the years as well.

MethodTennis
07-14-2012, 07:08 AM
he could probably do it pretty easily play 40 250 events in a year win 75% of them for 30 events on top of his what 76 current? bringing him up three short

roberttennis54
07-14-2012, 08:35 AM
I don't think Federer will come close to this record. Personally I believe Federer will virtually be retired when his daughters start school. From his interviews he seems proud Swiss and would want his daughters to grow up there. So realistically I see him playing for maybe 3 more years, IF his body holds up.

Best case scenario he wins around 4 tournaments a year, that would only give him about 87. Overtaking Mcenroe and maybe hitting 90 should be his first goal.

-RF-
07-14-2012, 08:35 AM
How many titles has federer won on average in 2010 and 2011? any1 know???

roberttennis54
07-14-2012, 08:39 AM
How many titles has federer won on average in 2010 and 2011? any1 know???

Since 2008 he is averaging around 4.

In 2008 he won 4, 2009 he won 4, 2010 he won 5, 2011 he won 4 again. This is a good year and he already has 5.

smoledman
07-14-2012, 11:15 AM
Problem is Federer doesn't play enough 250s to get it done. He keeps winning big titles though.

smoledman
07-14-2012, 11:17 AM
Honestly who cares about this meaningless record? Federer already owns the "big" titles # at 43. I count big titles as slams + YEC + Masters 1000 + Olympic gold medal. Who cares who is the king of 250s?

Zarfot Z
07-14-2012, 08:53 PM
You have to be joking OP.

In 10 years time people aren't going to remember your name for winning a 250.

To someone like Roger, such a tournament would be pointless, maybe even a waste of effort.

What really matters are the Grand Slams, Masters and Olympic medals.

smoledman
07-14-2012, 09:02 PM
You have to be joking OP.

In 10 years time people aren't going to remember your name for winning a 250.

To someone like Roger, such a tournament would be pointless, maybe even a waste of effort.

What really matters are the Grand Slams, Masters and Olympic medals.

Then by that measure Federer is already the GOAT. Like I said 43 big titles leads the pack.

Zarfot Z
07-14-2012, 09:11 PM
Then by that measure Federer is already the GOAT. Like I said 43 big titles leads the pack.

There's no doubt that Federer is the GOAT. That fact has been well established already.

Cup8489
07-14-2012, 09:23 PM
You have to be joking OP.

In 10 years time people aren't going to remember your name for winning a 250.

To someone like Roger, such a tournament would be pointless, maybe even a waste of effort.

What really matters are the Grand Slams, Masters and Olympic medals.

Yes, but if Federer were to win 110 titles in today's era, the most globalized and competitive (in terms of total players participating at the events), would due him even more justice to being maybe the best ever.

I mean.. if he ends up with around 100 titles, the only thing in his way would be Nadal.. and by that point it would be mostly moot, I think. Especially if Federer somehow breaks 20 majors.

Zarfot Z
07-14-2012, 09:32 PM
Yes, but if Federer were to win 110 titles in today's era, the most globalized and competitive (in terms of total players participating at the events), would due him even more justice to being maybe the best ever.

I mean.. if he ends up with around 100 titles, the only thing in his way would be Nadal.. and by that point it would be mostly moot, I think. Especially if Federer somehow breaks 20 majors.

Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe both have over 100 singles titles, yet I wouldn't rank them in the top 5 greatest tennis players.

Really, as long as you have the most GS, 17 in Federer's case, the overall number of titles you win is irrelevant. Greatness is measured in terms of GS, not 250 tournaments.

Cup8489
07-14-2012, 09:38 PM
Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe both have over 100 singles titles, yet I wouldn't rank them in the top 5 greatest tennis players.

Really, as long as you have the most GS, 17 in Federer's case, the overall number of titles you win is irrelevant. Greatness is measured in terms of GS, not 250 tournaments.

Jmac has 77 singles titles.. but I would definitely consider connors one of the best ever... his longevity is unmatched in the sport, as that 109 titles shows.

and I don't dispute that majors are a big factor.. but if Federer has both the major titles record and the total singles titles record, it provides him with, in my opinion, a nearly unassailable case for being the best ever.

Only way he could improve is if he played more dubs.. ala McEnroe. McEnroe is one of my top choices for best ever because he was equally impressive in singles as in doubles, showing his versatility and ability to win on all surfaces (i mean being 2 sets to love up on lendl at Roland Garros is no small feat, even if he did ultimately choke it away)

Zarfot Z
07-14-2012, 09:48 PM
and I don't dispute that majors are a big factor.. but if Federer has both the major titles record and the total singles titles record, it provides him with, in my opinion, a nearly unassailable case for being the best ever.

I understand your position, but the truth is that almost everyone will judge players by their greatness on the basis of how many GS they have won.

If Nadal ended up with 16 GS to Federer's 17, but had won 50 more titles in his career, Federer would probably still be considered 'greater'. Total titles won rarely comes into the GOAT debate.

Zarfot Z
07-14-2012, 09:50 PM
Jmac has 77 singles titles..

Error on my part, sorry about that.

Cup8489
07-15-2012, 09:38 PM
I understand your position, but the truth is that almost everyone will judge players by their greatness on the basis of how many GS they have won.

If Nadal ended up with 16 GS to Federer's 17, but had won 50 more titles in his career, Federer would probably still be considered 'greater'. Total titles won rarely comes into the GOAT debate.

actually i'm not so sure about that, If Nadal won 50 more titles than Federer he'd have at least 120+ titles... more than anyone in history. For me, that would put him above Federer despite Federer having more majors, as that many more titles would demonstrate incredible dominance and longevity for Nadal.

smoledman
07-15-2012, 09:48 PM
There is no way Nadal is winning more then 70 titles.