Federer fans: 1 WTF title or 3 Masters titles?

[The_18th_Slam]

Which would you rather Federer win? 1 WTF title or 3 more Masters titles?

An additional WTF title would probably allow him to hold the record, keeping Djokovic at bay. However, 3 Masters titles would tie him with Nadal at 27, which is the only metric where Nadal is ahead of Federer. Which would you prefer?

 

[tennisaddict]

Both of them seem trivial at this time if Rafa is not going to achieve more.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Both of them seem trivial at this time if Rafa is not going to achieve more.

Be that as it may, which would you prefer? Neither?

 

[tennisaddict]

Be that as it may, which would you prefer? Neither?

Correct. When Rafa was breathing down his neck, all these mattered.

Now, anything other than majors in Fed's career is just a means to give him confidence and ranking points

 

[tennis_pro]

1 WTF hands down. It's like you asked what would you like for Fed - 1 AO or 3 WTF's, I'd take the AO without thinking.

 

[djokerer]

3 masters.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Correct. When Rafa was breathing down his neck, all these mattered.

Now, anything other than majors in Fed's career is just a means to give him confidence and ranking points

So you'd rather he won nothing than 1 WTF or 3 Masters?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Masters 1000's are not important in a player's legacy, despite what the Nadal and Nole fans think. Nobody knows how many Lendl, Pete or Andre won (the players themselves probably couldn't tell you the number).

So the answer is the YEC for Fed. Much more important, and to get 7 would be epic.

 

[SpinToWin]

Clearly the WTF in my personal opinion.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

In terms of his legacy, I don't think there is much to choose between the two achievements. However, winning 3 more Masters would give us 3 more memorable moments, and I value that at this stage of Federer's career. So I went with 3 Masters.

 

[LazyNinja19]

Neither.



The 18th Slam.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

LazyNinja19:
Neither.



The 18th Slam.

 

[BGod]

The WTF is basically 1.5 Master.

It's 3 sets but facing the Top 7 other players in the world in 5 matches.

 

[robok9]

All I know is both of them should go back to BO5 finals

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

WTF, without a single moment of hesitation

 

[AndyFtw17]

I went for WTF, but without a doubt would choose 3 Masters if those included Rome & MC.

 

[Sysyphus]

Is it cheating if I say three Cincy's?

 

[SoBad]

3 mickey mouse trumps 1 exho

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Is it cheating if I say three Cincy's?

No.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

3 mickey mouse trumps 1 exho

But I'm not asking you if you take 3 Nadals over 1 Monfils.

 

[helterskelter]

1 WTF hands down. It's like you asked what would you like for Fed - 1 AO or 3 WTF's, I'd take the AO without thinking.

I don't know about that. I can see a case for saying that Slams should be given lexical priority over WTFs, so that one Slam trumps any number of WTFs. But I'm not sure I'd extend that lexical priority below that level. I'd think that one WTF = two Masters 1000s, not three, and certainly not four.

Would you say that one 500 title trumps three 250s?

 

[Chadillac]

3 masters pays more right? Professional tennis is about making money, amature is about trophys

 

[Gazelle]

Fed just won another WTF title 3 days ago.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Fed just won another WTF title 3 days ago.

Huh?

 

[tennis_pro]

Huh?

I think he meant that he screwed up the 2015 US Open final.

 

[SoBad]

Fed just won another WTF title 3 days ago.

Humiliated by better player despite best effort.

 

[TommyA8X]

3 masters pays more right? Professional tennis is about making money, amature is about trophys

They don't actually. WTF winner gets roughly $2 million.
MS1000 winner gets between $600-900 grand. (IW and Miami being the biggest ones and giving the winner $900 000)

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

YEC all day.

 

[The Green Mile]

A 7th WTF title would be great.

 

[Dave1982]

Yeah to me it's hands down a 7th WTF.

Wonder what peoples thoughts would be if the 2 remaining M1000's were Rome and MC....the 2 I believe Federer still needs to win in order to complete a career M1000 sweep (of the 9 current M1000's)...would that sway people towards the M1000 option as opposed to WTF?

 

[cc0509]

I have to be honest, I don't care much about any of them and they aren't that important to his legacy any longer. He had three chances at capturing slam #18 since 2014 and he blew all three chances. One more slam title would have been much more important for his legacy than another Masters 1000 or three Masters 1000s or another WTF.

 

[gn]

3 Masters means 3 more titles to the Total. WTF is very unlikely for Fed to win.

 

[kishnabe]

1WTF....him winning 3 more won't help in the MS1000 count. Djokovic will end up with the most MS1000.

WTF...can push in a number 1 spot of WTF trophies for a long while.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Unless the Master titles were for Monte Carlo, Rome and I guess Paris then no way in hell is 3 Masters better then WTF!

 

[Luckydog]

Too many guys look greedy. Any title of any event would be memoriable when a player is older than 34. IMO,at this moment,any swing of Federer on court is precious gift send by god. Let's enjoy his match,go and see what will happen.Just because he is Roger Federer, impossible is nothing,trophy or lose,whatever,no?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I have to be honest, I don't care much about any of them and they aren't that important to his legacy any longer. He had three chances at capturing slam #18 since 2014 and he blew all three chances. One more slam title would have been much more important for his legacy than another Masters 1000 or three Masters 1000s or another WTF.

Oh, yeah, because he was handed those chances on a silver platter, right? It's not like he had to win 6 matches to get to the final or anything

Here is some perspective: when was the last time someone made 2 Grand Slam finals the year they turned 34?

 

[cc0509]

Oh, yeah, because he was handed those chances on a silver platter, right? It's not like he had to win 6 matches to get to the final or anything

Here is some perspective: when was the last time someone made 2 Grand Slam finals the year they turned 34?

When did I say he was handed those chances on a silver platter? In my mind that 2014 Wimbledon match should have been Federer's. The 2015 Wimbledon and USO 2015 weren't as close. IMO Federer should have been able to produce one win out of those three slams. He didn't rise to the occasion during the important points. What's true is true.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

When did I say he was handed those chances on a silver platter?

Maybe when you said he blew his chances, like they were gifted to him? If winning Slams was as easy as not blowing chances, why don't you pick up your racquet and show him how it's done? The guy is the only one standing up to Djokovic, and he's 34. Give him credit. All I see is people acting like he's a spineless loser ever since he lost on Sunday. And you're supposed to be fans.

In my mind that 2014 Wimbledon match should have been Federer's. The 2015 Wimbledon and USO 2015 weren't as close. IMO Federer should have been able to produce one win out of those three slams. He didn't rise to the occasion during the important points. What's true is true.

He's risen to the occasion on more occasions than anyone else in Tennis history. He's done fine.

 

[cc0509]

Maybe when you said he blew his chances, like they were gifted to him? If winning Slams was as easy as not blowing chances, why don't you pick up your racquet and show him how it's done? The guy is the only one standing up to Djokovic, and he's 34. Give him credit. All I see is people acting like he's a spineless loser since he lost on Sunday. And you're supposed to be fans.

He's risen to the occasion on more occasions than anyone else in Tennis history. He's done fine.

Why are you getting so upset? I don't have to be a blind fan and look away from a player's weaknesses. It is admirable that Federer is making slam finals at age 34 but IMO he blew too many important chances in that USO final vs Djokovic and he is not the strongest player mentally of all time when he's up against all time great rivals. What's true is true. In my mind, he should have nabbed ONE of the last three slams vs Djokovic. All he had to do was win ONE.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

he is not the strongest player mentally of all time when he's up against all time great rivals.

Who is? Nadal? What's he doing at 29? That's right, losing to Brown and Fognini. What a mental warrior!

In my mind, he should have nabbed ONE of the last three slams vs Djokovic. All he had to do was win ONE.

Why should he have done that?

 

[cc0509]

Who is? Nadal? What's he doing at 29? That's right, losing to Brown and Fognini. What a mental warrior!


Why should he have done that?

Nadal is losing to clowns right now but he's still mentally stronger than Federer vs his biggest rivals in slam matches. It's impossible to say otherwise.

Federer should have won one of the last three slams vs Djokovic because who knows if he will ever have the chance to win another slam. Missed opportunities.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Nadal is losing to clowns right now but he's still mentally stronger than Federer vs his biggest rivals in slam matches. It's impossible to say otherwise.

Why is it impossible to say otherwise? Because he is more dominant on his best surface than anyone in history and has played Federer and Djokovic more times at the French Open than anywhere else? That's not being mentally strong against your biggest rivals. That's being extremely dominant on one surface and not being good enough to progress on other surfaces unless you're in top form.

Federer should have won one of the last three slams vs Djokovic because who knows if he will ever have the chance to win another slam. Missed opportunities.

But why should he win another Slam? He's already won more than anyone else in history. Why should he not win, I don't know, 27 more Slams, for instance?

 

[Netspirit]

WTF. I would even take a 7th WTF over another slam - to secure the lead over Djokovic.

 

[cc0509]

Why is it impossible to say otherwise? Because he is more dominant on his best surface than anyone in history and has played Federer and Djokovic more times at the French Open than anywhere else? That's not being mentally strong against your biggest rivals. That's being extremely dominant on one surface and not being good enough to progress on other surfaces unless you're in top form.

But why should he win another Slam? He's already won more than anyone else in history. Why should he not win, I don't know, 27 more Slams, for instance?

I guess you must have missed the Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 finals where Nadal beat Federer on two surfaces Federer should have won on ? I'm not going to argue with you. Federer is 2-9 vs Nadal in slams. The last time he beat Nadal in a slam was in 2007. Federer for me plays the most interesting style of tennis and he is the most accomplished player of all time. He holds the two most important records in tennis, i.e. the slam count and weeks at number one. However, he is not the greatest of all time when it comes to big stage matches vs other all time greats. He just isn't. I've accepted it. No player can have it all. I'm sure Federer sleeps just fine at night with what he's accomplished. But fans shouldn't be in denial and have to claim Federer is the greatest at everything. He's the greatest at most things. That should be good enough.

Again, IMO Federer should have won one of the last three slam finals vs Djokovic. He crumbled in most of the bigger moments and Djokovic didn't especially in the USO final. It's simple.

 

[Russeljones]

The WTF is basically 1.5 Master.

It's 3 sets but facing the Top 7 other players in the world in 5 matches.

How is it a 1.5 Master when there are 9 Masters, 4 majors but one WTF? Or are you using ATP points as a measuring stick?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I guess you must have missed the Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 finals where Nadal beat Federer on two surfaces Federer should have won on ?

Again, why should Federer have won those? They weren't Federer's best years at those events (which is 2007 for the AO and 2005/2006 for Wimbledon) while they were Nadal's best years at those events. Isn't peak Nadal at those events not good enough to beat a Federer who was not quite at his peak in those years?

I'm not going to argue with you. Federer is 2-9 vs Nadal in slams. The last time he beat Nadal in a slam was in 2007. Federer for me plays the most interesting style of tennis and he is the most accomplished player of all time. He holds the two most important records in tennis, i.e. the slam count and weeks at number one. However, he is not the greatest of all time when it comes to big stage matches vs other all time greats. He just isn't. I've accepted it. No player can have it all. I'm sure Federer sleeps just fine at night with what he's accomplished. But fans shouldn't be in denial and have to claim Federer is the greatest at everything. He's the greatest at most things. That should be good enough.

Who said he's the greatest at everything? However, he is much better than Nadal at showing up, and it doesn't matter how much of a rival-beater Nadal is if he's losing to Brown and Fognini. That doesn't make him a mental warrior, or Federer a mental weakling.

Again, IMO Federer should have won one of the last three slam finals vs Djokovic.

But why?

 

[cc0509]

"The_18th_Slam, post: 9664120, member: 739904"Again, why should Federer have won those? They weren't Federer's best years at those events (which is 2007 for the AO and 2005/2006 for Wimbledon) while they were Nadal's best years at those events. Isn't peak Nadal at those events not good enough to beat a Federer who was not quite at his peak in those years

Federer was still in his prime in 2008 and 2009, what are you talking about? I can't talk to any fan who is in so much denial. It's one thing for Federer to lose to Nadal at the FO since Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time but losing to Nadal at Wimbledon and the AO when Federer was still in his prime and making all slam finals in a year?

Who said he's the greatest at everything? However, he is much better than Nadal at showing up, and it doesn't matter how much of a rival-beater Nadal is if he's losing to Brown and Fognini. That doesn't make him a mental warrior, or Federer a mental weakling.

Yes, Federer is much more consistent than Nadal but Nadal has been better overall mentally in the biggest stage matches vs his biggest rivals. I can't believe I have to explain this to a fellow Federer fan. It's ok that Nadal is better than Federer in this ONE area.

But why?

I've explained why. Federer was mopping up all other competition on his way to these slam finals. He should have won at least one of those finals vs Djokovic because he was in tip top form and they are big missed opportunities.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Federer was still in his prime in 2008 and 2009, what are you talking about? I can't talk to any fan who is in so much denial. It's one thing for Federer to lose to Nadal at the FO since Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all time but losing to Nadal at Wimbledon and the AO when Federer was still in his prime and making all slam finals in a year?

Yes, he was in his prime. I was saying they weren't his peak years. Bad reading day?

Yes, Federer is much more consistent than Nadal but Nadal has been better overall mentally in the biggest stage matches vs his biggest rivals. I can't believe I have to explain this to a fellow Federer fan. It's ok that Nadal is better than Federer in this ONE area.

Really? How?

Nadal against Djokovic:
French Open: 6-1 (impressive, but Nadal is a 9-time champion and Djokovic is a 0-time champion)
Australian Open: 0-1
US Open: 2-1 (impressive, but only the 2013 win. Djokovic wasn't very good in 2010, Nadal's peak USO year)
Wimbledon: 1-1 (about expected)

So, basically, Nadal has one impressive win against Djokovic. Just one. The rest are pretty expected. And if you're gonna bring up his wins against Federer, imagine if Nadal was good enough to keep facing Djokovic in 2015 and 2016. And now imagine if Djokovic was 5 years younger than Nadal. Scary thought, right?

I've explained why. Federer was mopping up all other competition on his way to these slam finals. He should have won at least one of those finals vs Djokovic because he was in tip top form and they are big missed opportunities.

Djokovic is a level above everyone this year. And Federer doesn't have the groundgame like Wawrinka does to keep up with Djokovic anymore. Instead of giving Federer credit for being able to mop up the rest of the field, you're going to say he blew away chances? Really? Where is your precious Nadal? That's right, he's losing to Brown and Fognini What a mental warrior! And please, spare me the "I am a Federer fan" routine.

 

[cc0509]

"The_18th_Slam, post: 9664150, member: 739904"]Yes, he was in his prime. I was saying they weren't his peak years. Bad reading day?

I know you said "peak." But he was still in his prime and should have never lost Wimbledon and the AO to Nadal. I don't understand why some Federer fans have trouble admitting those were bad losses.

Really? How?

Nadal against Djokovic:
French Open: 6-1 (impressive, but Nadal is a 9-time champion and Djokovic is a 0-time champion)
Australian Open: 0-1
US Open: 2-1 (impressive, but only the 2013 win. Djokovic wasn't very good in 2010, Nadal's peak USO year)
Wimbledon: 1-1 (about expected)

At their very peak or prime, I would still pick Nadal over Federer and Djokovic when it comes to mental strength. The situation today appears to be a different story with Nadal losing to a bunch of nobodies. We shall see if he can correct that or not.

Djokovic is a level above everyone this year. And Federer doesn't have the groundgame like Wawrinka does to keep up with Djokovic anymore. Instead of giving Federer credit for being able to mop up the rest of the field, you're going to say he blew away chances? Really? Where is your precious Nadal? That's right, he's losing to Brown and Fognini What a mental warrior! And please, spare me the "I am a Federer fan" routine

.

I give Federer credit for mopping up the field prior to meeting Djokovic in the finals of those three slams at his age but I also think Federer blew too many big points. Do his awful break point stats in the USO final lie? That's how he lost the match.

As for me being a Federer fan, it's hilarious that you can't understand that I can be a Federer fan and also acknowledge ONE area where Federer is not the greatest. Federer is the greatest at 9 things out of 10. It's OK for him to be under par in one area and I think his mental fortitude in big stage matches vs all time greats is not the best. You can think whatever you want. It's a free country where I live at least. And yes Nadal losing to all of these nobodies at the moment is not great for his legacy. All of these greats have some weaknesses.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I know you said "peak." But he was still in his prime and should have never lost Wimbledon and the AO to Nadal. I don't understand why some Federer fans have trouble admitting those were bad losses.

Why should he never have lost them? I love how you speak in these absolutes as if they were truths of life to be accepted by everyone And when I ask you why, you never have an answer

At their very peak or prime, I would still pick Nadal over Federer and Djokovic when it comes to mental strength. The situation today appears to be a different story with Nadal losing to a bunch of nobodies. We shall see if he can correct that or not.

Again, I know who you'd pick. We've been through that already. You just haven't answered why that is.

I give Federer credit for mopping up the field prior to meeting Djokovic in the finals of those three slams at his age

You do? I would have never guessed

but I also think Federer blew too many big points. Do his awful break point stats in the USO final lie? That's how he lost the match.

To squander those break points, he had to earn them, right? Or was he gifted those break points, like he was gifted Slam finals?

As for me being a Federer fan, it's hilarious that you can't understand that I can be a Federer fan and also acknowledge ONE area where Federer is not the greatest.

Never said otherwise. It's just that every time you get cornered, you pull the "but... but... but... I am a Federer fan!" card, instead of arguing your point. Like when you make declarative statements about Nadal definitely making a comeback, and when people question your certainty, you pull the, "but I'm a Federer fan!" card. It doesn't matter whose fan you are. If you have a position, you should be able to logically explain it. Being a Federer fan doesn't preclude you from having to logically explain your answers.

Federer is the greatest at 9 things out of 10. It's OK for him to be under par in one area and I think his mental fortitude in big stage matches vs all time greats is not the best.

Of course. But could you please explain how he's under par in that one area?

You can think whatever you want. It's a free country where I live at least. And yes Nadal losing to all of these nobodies at the moment is not great for his legacy. All of these greats have some weaknesses.

So you can't explain your position? I thought so. Good thing you're free to believe whatever you want