PDA

View Full Version : Federer wants to win the "Roger Slam"


Moose Malloy
02-13-2006, 02:53 PM
Hope he doesn't start talking about himself in the 3rd person like Serena:

"My next goal is to prepare well for the French Open during the weeks lying ahead. I certainly want to play my best tennis during the next tournaments, which will be a good test for the second Grand Slam of this year," Federer said in a post on his official web site Roger Federer.com. "The title in Paris would be the fulfillment of an enormous dream: the Roger Slam, winning all four Grand Slams in series."

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14740&bannerregion=

Shaolin
02-13-2006, 03:24 PM
Its nice to hear him talk about actually wanting the title. Its a little old hearing him say he's fine with just winning Wimbledon for the 87th time and retaining the #1 ranking. Winning RG is something he needs if he wants to be considered as the greatest and it will forever separate him from the Sampras shadow. Good luck Fed...

tennisjunkiela
02-13-2006, 05:50 PM
Winning RG is something he needs if he wants to be considered as the greatest and it will forever separate him from the Sampras shadow. Good luck Fed...

if fed wins RG, this, in my opinion, would definitely separate him from Sampras.

agassi is considered great for many reasons but, his big claim to fame is winning a career grand slam. how cool would it be for fed to, not only win a career grand slam, but to also win them 4 in a row!!

then, once fed reaches hi #15 GS in the next3 - 5 years, he would then be the undisputed greatest male tennis player of all tlme, even if he never wins a calendar year grand slam.

fastdunn
02-13-2006, 05:56 PM
I think Federer can win FO multiple times.

West Coast Ace
02-13-2006, 06:32 PM
I think Federer can win FO multiple times.As good as Nadal is, I tend to agree.

But Fed needs some good fortune - namely hot, dry conditions. When I saw the damp, gloomy day he had to play Nadal last year (with wind) I knew he was done - and by his play he did too.

Freedom
02-13-2006, 08:21 PM
I think Roger has pretty well gotten out from under Sapmras' shadow. But winning Roland Garros will definetly put him as the best player in history. Plus, this year, he'll probably break Bjorn's grass-court winning streak.

alienhamster
02-13-2006, 09:16 PM
As good as Nadal is, I tend to agree.

But Fed needs some good fortune - namely hot, dry conditions. When I saw the damp, gloomy day he had to play Nadal last year (with wind) I knew he was done - and by his play he did too. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Roger fare better on clay when the conditions are slower? I know it seems counter-intuitive based on his fast court dominance. But Hamburg is the slowest clay surface (and I think some of that is due to the humidity and cold), and this has clearly been where he's had the most success.

Fed seems to have more trouble when the ball bounces up higher, particularly to his backhand side. Warmer conditions seem to make the heavy, hard topspin shots of the clay courters have more bounce and bite. Fed can't dictate play as well nor finish off points quickly in those conditions, seemingly anyway.

legolas
02-13-2006, 10:14 PM
i hope he wins and beats sampras' record

rfprse
02-13-2006, 10:23 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Roger fare better on clay when the conditions are slower? I know it seems counter-intuitive based on his fast court dominance. But Hamburg is the slowest clay surface (and I think some of that is due to the humidity and cold), and this has clearly been where he's had the most success.
Yes. I think he likes slow, damp condition (at least according to him).

ssuHeartsRivald
02-14-2006, 03:46 AM
Roger Slam = Golden Slam.
i believe the only way he could win RG is beating Nadal (except injury).
It's kinda hard to get all slams in a year. it's a 50-50 chance for Roger to do it.

slice bh compliment
02-14-2006, 04:20 AM
Golden Slam = a name conjured to summarize S. Graf's 1998 campaign: all four Slams plus Olympic gold in singles.

There is no topping that. Unless you add an Olympic Gold medal in doubles as well, maybe a Masters Cup title ... and/or finish the year winning the Davis Cup for your country. Is that even possible?

Oh, and my opinion re: Fedi calling 4 in a row a Roger Slam -- it is not his overblown ego, it is just a reference to Serena and possibly Martina N.

ssuHeartsRivald
02-14-2006, 04:29 AM
Golden Slam = a name conjured to summarize S. Graf's 1998 campaign: all four Slams plus Olympic gold in singles.

There is no topping that. Unless you add an Olympic Gold medal in doubles as well, maybe a Masters Cup title ... and/or finish the year winning the Davis Cup for your country. Is that even possible?

Oh, and my opinion re: Fedi calling 4 in a row a Roger Slam -- it is not his overblown ego, it is just a reference to Serena and possibly Martina N.

yup, my bad.
This quotation from Wikipedia about Golden Slam

Golden Slam
The Golden Slam, or Golden Grand Slam, is winning all four Grand Slam tournaments, as well as the Gold medal in tennis at the Summer Olympics, in the same calendar year. The opportunities to do so have been rare, not just because the Summer Olympics are held only once every four years, but also because in between the games of 1924 and 1988, tennis was not a medal sport at the Games.


True Golden Slam
So far this feat has been achieved only once:

Steffi Graf (1988

Career Golden Slam
Winning all tournaments in a True Golden Slam, but non-consecutively:

Players who won a Career Golden Slam:
Andre Agassi (1992-94-95-96-99)
Teams that won a Career Golden Slam:
Serena Williams & Venus Williams (1999-2000-01)
Gigi Fernandez won in the 1996 Olympics, partnering Mary Joe Fernandez. But won a career Grand Slam in Doubles partnering Natasha Zvereva

baseliner
02-14-2006, 06:13 AM
When Federer wins his second Grand Slam seven years after his first one, call me and we will discuss where he ranks on the list of all time greats. Until then please do not insult Rod Laver with your puffery and puling for Federer.

arnz
02-14-2006, 06:23 AM
^^^^ I have no idea what this dude just said??? When Fed wins his second slam 7 years after his first??/ WHAAA????

JackRabbit
02-14-2006, 06:39 AM
arnz, he means that Rod Laver achieved that feat. The battle for greatest ever just isn't between Sampras and Federer as most people seem to think.

baseliner
02-14-2006, 06:44 AM
Arnz,
A brief history lesson.
Rod Laver won his first Grand Slam (all 4 in the same calendar year) in 1962 then turned pro. At that time pros were banned from the "amateur" tourneys. Open tennis came along in 1969, Rod Lave again won all 4 majors. Now do you understand what this "dude" is talking about?

slice bh compliment
02-14-2006, 07:38 AM
^This is the problem in calling each of the 'Big Four' a Grand Slam. The Grand Slam is all four in the same year. In singles it has only been Budge, Little Mo, Court and Laver. It is confusing to people who have not read a lot about tennis storied past.

There are 4 'Grand Slam tournaments'...tournaments that comprise the Grand Slam. Call 'em slams. Call 'em the four Majors (which sounds like golf more than tennis). Call them the championships of the four nations who happened to participate in and win a lot of the early Davis Cup competitions.
But what they are not, individually are 'Grand Slams'.

The tennis guy
02-14-2006, 09:12 AM
Arnz,
A brief history lesson.
Rod Laver won his first Grand Slam (all 4 in the same calendar year) in 1962 then turned pro. At that time pros were banned from the "amateur" tourneys. Open tennis came along in 1969, Rod Lave again won all 4 majors. Now do you understand what this "dude" is talking about?

It's unfair to compare today with back then when 3 out of 4 majors were played on grass. I am not trying to diminish Laver's achievement, still the greatest achievment on men's side so far in my opinion. However, winning THE grand slam today on 4 different surfaces are much more difficult than back then.

Moose Malloy
02-14-2006, 09:46 AM
It's unfair to compare today with back then when 3 out of 4 majors were played on grass. I am not trying to diminish Laver's achievement, still the greatest achievment on men's side so far in my opinion. However, winning THE grand slam today on 4 different surfaces are much more difficult than back then.

This attitude gets a bit tiring. And there are not 4 surfaces, but 3. The US Open only started using hardcourt 1978. Rebound Ace didn't even exist until 1988. Laver won a ton of events on hardcourts, look it up. He was so dominant in '69 that he would have won majors on cow dung. Why should he be penalized for the way the slams were(using just clay & grass) for over 80 years?

Check out how many hall of famers Laver beat in '69(& how few Fed beat in winning the last 3 slams) And Laver didn't have the luxury of tiebreaks. And no night matches(which is all Fed played at Australia this year) It was over 100 degrees when Laver beat Roche in 5 sets(really more like 9 sets if you look at # of games) in Australia '69.

R32 Massimo Di Domenico (ITA) W 6-2 6-2 6-3
R16 Roy Emerson (AUS) W 6-2 6-4 3-6 9-7
QF Fred Stolle (AUS) W 6-4 18-16 6-4
SF Tony Roche (AUS) W 7-5 22-20 9-11 1-6 6-3
F Andres Gimeno (ESP) W 6-3 6-4 7-5

R128 Koji Watanabe (JPN) W 6-1 6-1 6-1
R64 Dick Crealy (AUS) W 3-6 7-9 6-2 6-2 6-4
R32 Pietro Marzano (ITA) W 6-1 6-0 8-6
R16 Stan Smith (USA) W 6-4 6-2 6-4
QF Andres Gimeno (ESP) W 3-6 6-3 6-4 6-3
SF Tom Okker (NED) W 4-6 6-0 6-0 6-4
F Ken Rosewall (AUS) W 6-4 6-3 6-4

R128 Nicola Pietrangeli (ITA) W 6-1 6-2 6-2
R64 Premjit Lall (IND) W 3-6 4-6 6-3 6-0 6-0
R32 Jan Leschly (DEN) W 6-3 6-3 6-3
R16 Stan Smith (USA) W 6-4 6-2 7-9 3-6 6-3
QF Cliff Drysdale (RSA) W 6-4 6-2 6-3
SF Arthur Ashe (USA) W 2-6 6-2 9-7 6-0
F John Newcombe (AUS) W 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-4

R128 Luis-Fernando Garcia (MEX) W 6-2 6-4 6-2
R64 Jaime Pinto-Bravo (CHI) W 6-4 7-5 6-2
R32 Jaime Fillol Sr. (CHI) W 8-6 6-1 6-2
R16 Dennis Ralston (USA) W 6-4 4-6 4-6 6-2 6-3
QF Roy Emerson (AUS) W 4-6 8-6 13-11 6-4
SF Arthur Ashe (USA) W 8-6 6-3 14-12
F Tony Roche (AUS) W 7-9 6-1 6-2 6-2

He beat 7 Hall of Famers! While Fed is beating dudes like Kiefer & Haas.

fastdunn
02-14-2006, 10:47 AM
I agree winning THE gland slams today is a bit more difficult than 1960's
simply because they are played on 3 differernt surface. That makes Agassi's
achivement special. Only guy in history to win career slam on 3 different
surfaces. But still Laver's achievement is such a special record, especially
the 2nd one in 1969 when professional tennis fully started...

However, I also agree Federer is somewhat lucky to beat somewhat
weakened competition and generally slowed down ATP tour condition.

However, I think Federer is still so good that he can win 5-6 consecutive
slams if he gets a bit lucky at this year's FO.

ACE of Hearts
02-14-2006, 12:11 PM
I am tired about hearing the competition.A prime Sampras would have a hell of a time playing now.I think its even more difficult then it was during Sampras's reign, just my opinion!

VGP
02-14-2006, 01:20 PM
Ugh.......*yawn*......with regards to "better than Sampras."


Of course Federer wants a title at Roland Garros. Players of his caliber want to win every title.

I'm just glad to hear that he would like to have won all four in a row. Also, it show me that by no means does he ever think that even if he were to win Roland Garros this year after winning the AO that winning at Wimbledon and USO to complete the calendar year Grand Slam is a lock.

If it happens, that would be great, too. Six in a row? Graf-like numbers.

tangerine
02-16-2006, 01:20 PM
Ugh. Did Roger really say this? I hope he doesn't turn into another arrogant "I love me" Serena. :(


http://roddickwatch.blogspot.com/

Tennis_Nickmo
02-18-2006, 02:17 PM
I can see Roger winning the GS this year, and possibly once more in his career. Can't see him overtaking RL, but could do, depends on the movement of the up and coming players.