PDA

View Full Version : More likely for Roger, 20 or 8?


cuddles26
06-18-2006, 01:53 PM
Which is more likely, Roger winning 20 slams or winning only 8 slams? I am not saying either are likely at all, which of the two is more likely?

LowProfile
06-18-2006, 02:02 PM
I would say that you have set upper and lower limits that are too extreme. Federer will most likely hit 8 major titles by the end of this year's Wimbledon, and chances are relatively high that he will repeat at the US Open as well.

On the other hand, 20 is quite excessive. It's not extremely likely that he can keep up the competitive fire and drive to win 20 grand slams (although the smoothness of his game will ensure that his body can probably handle it).

I would set the estimate at 16 grand slams myself. So I suppose that's closer to 20 than to 8.

exruda
06-18-2006, 02:11 PM
although I love Fed's game I do not see him or anyone else winning 20 slams. So 8 is more probable, but imo the number will be closer to 20 than to 8, so I do not know what to respond :)

Bassus
06-18-2006, 02:31 PM
Had Federer not consistently underperformed at the French until 2005, and managed to win one or two, then who knows, 20 might have been within reach.

Though it still would have been unlikely.

malakas
06-18-2006, 02:35 PM
I believe 20 more likely than 8..

bluescreen
06-18-2006, 02:58 PM
definately more than 8, but 20 seems a little high like others were saying. i'd guess on the plus side of 15.

Viper
06-18-2006, 03:49 PM
Am I the only one thinking Federer won't win Wimbledon? I say he wins a total 11 slams, including one French.

exruda
06-18-2006, 03:52 PM
Well, even if someone thinks Fed won't win this year's wimbledon, they're counting next year's FO as this 8th slam that Fed is sure to have :)

federerhoogenbandfan
06-18-2006, 04:04 PM
Am I the only one thinking Federer won't win Wimbledon? I say he wins a total 11 slams, including one French.

Yes you probably are the only one thinking that. Who on earth is going to take it away from Federer this year?

fastdunn
06-18-2006, 05:03 PM
As far as I know, the highest # of slam finals played by a player
in open era is Ivan Lendle's 19 slam finals.

I would be really surprised if Federer can play like 2004-2005
in 2007-2008.

bluescreen
06-18-2006, 05:06 PM
i wouldnt. no 1 is giving him a real battle except for nadal, and mostly on clay. the only way he wont achieve his current success in 07-08 is if nadal becomes much better on other surfaces and reaches the finals of every slam.

btw, whoever said fed isnt winning wimbledon this year better have a very good reason. its just absurd.

JayxTheKoolest
06-18-2006, 06:06 PM
Roger lost the French (perhaps will never win it), but he'll continually win the other three.

Rickson
06-18-2006, 06:10 PM
Which is more likely, Roger winning 20 slams or winning only 8 slams? I am not saying either are likely at all, which of the two is more likely?
If you're asking which he'd be closer to at the end of his career, the answer is 20.

The Pusher Terminator
06-18-2006, 06:54 PM
with Nadal around he will only win one slam a year...at the most!...(LOL). I am not completely serious.

quest01
06-18-2006, 06:58 PM
I dont think Fed will surpass Sampras record of 14 grand slams.

Shaolin
06-18-2006, 07:05 PM
15 or 16 with 1 or 2 French Opens.

diegaa
06-18-2006, 07:29 PM
So teh average is 14, just sampras record. The "more likely" issue is translated (once again) into a thread if Fed will get there or not matter...

cuddles26
06-20-2006, 01:54 PM
I am not asking which he will be closer too, but which of the two is more likely 20 or 8. If you think he is most likely to win 12, 20 could still be more likely then 8 to you for example, despite 12 being closer to 8 then 20. On the other hand if you think he is most likely to win 16, 8 could conceivably be more likely to you then 20(although that is unlikely I suppose). It is more likely to think he is most likely to win 14 or less, and still think he is more likely to win 20 then 8, just because 8 would mean him winning only 1 more which is such incredably low odds being his age, dominance on some surfaces for atleast now, etc......

fastdunn
06-20-2006, 02:08 PM
My prediction was that Federer would be more like Wilander
or mcEnroe rather than Lendle or Sampras. Brilliant 2-3 years
and the taper down. I just can not believe he can continue
current brilliance beyond 2006.

I'd say we'll know it around the end of 2007.
If he continues his performance of 2004-5 until 2007-2008,
I think game would be over and he'll surpass 15 or more slams.
If that happens, I'll have my hats off to Federer and my prediction
will turn out to be wrong...

Hal
06-20-2006, 02:09 PM
It is more likely to think he is most likely to win 14 or less, and still think he is more likely to win 20 then 8, just because 8 would mean him winning only 1 more which is such incredably low odds being his age, dominance on some surfaces for atleast now, etc......Winning 13 more majors is even lower odds, IMO.

tursafinov
06-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Most likely he has 3 more Slams at the most in him if he makes this Wimbledon then thatwill give him 11 in all wich is extroardinary for anyone. However if Agassi with the right draw at 35, can get to a final than Fed might have enough left to reach 15..one more than Sampras. Only time will show how the game evolves in the next 4 years.