What would Federer choose if given this choice?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Blocker, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Assume you are Roger Federer. You have determined your retirement tournament to be the 2016 Olympics. You find a bottle, you rub it and a genie appears. You are granted one wish, from two options. The options are:

    Option 1
    Win 2 more majors of your choice, except the FO, before you retire. And nothing else.

    Or

    Option 2
    Before you retire:
    * Win 1 more FO, beating Nadal in the final; and
    * Win the singles gold medal at the 2016 Olympics; and
    * Win the Davis Cup once for your country; and
    * Overtake Nadal in your head to head count by beating him constantly in R16s, QFs, SFs across all slams plus the FO final stated above; and
    * Finish one more year as year end number 1.
    And nothing else.

    Option 1 takes you to 19 majors.

    Option 2 takes you to 18 majors but ticks every other box as far as undisputed GOAT is concerned.

    Which option do you choose and why?
     
    #1
  2. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,400
    Clearly option two... A second career slam with the French win, the Davis Cup and the Olympic title would be massive additions to his resume.

    The head to head is completely and utterly irrelevant so far as the history books go and will be quickly forgotten by the world other than a few die-hard Nadal fans.
     
    #2
  3. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I agree with you. Option 2 for me. I had this discussion over a few drinks with some friends of mine, they all said option 1. I was the only one who said option 2. IMO, a FO win over the FO goat, a DC and a singles gold medal would be worth forgoing the extra major.

    Finally someone agrees with me.
     
    #3
  4. Candide

    Candide Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Yabba, the greatest little place on Earth
    Good question. I think it'd be a knife edge with the possibility of putting Nadal to the sword in Paris would making it a difficult decision for him. I think the other elements wouldn't carry much weight for him however and in the end the lure of two majors would win the day. He's only playing against the history books now and the former would be the more resounding entires on that score. Option B would be sweet but is more a personal pride and ego list which I think he would decline.
     
    #4
  5. AnotherTennisProdigy

    AnotherTennisProdigy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    891
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    It has to be option 2. Doing everything you couldn't do in your career is a big deal.
     
    #5
  6. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    Option two by a million miles. Majors are the main thing, but winning 50 MS tourneys is still bigger than winning 1 major. It's not even a close call for me.
     
    #6
  7. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,818
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    If it was 20 majors vs 18 I'd take 20 compared to 18 and everything else.

    But in this case I take 18.
     
    #7
  8. SStrikerR

    SStrikerR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,046
    Location:
    Not Fantasy Land
    This is like asking if you'd rather drive a Ferrari or a school bus.
     
    #8
  9. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,883
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    This is obvious. So much so I'm not even giving my answer.
     
    #9
  10. Magnetite

    Magnetite Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    907
    Option 2 ..

    Beating Nadal at the FO would be glorious for Fed.

    Nadal came into Federer's house (Wimbledon), and took it from him.

    Federer hasn't been able to give Nadal much trouble in Nadal's house (FO).

    The options are a bit ridiculous. Pretty sure everyone would pick #2, even Federer, for a number of different reasons.
     
    #10
  11. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    Option 2 and it's not even close.
     
    #11
  12. AnotherTennisProdigy

    AnotherTennisProdigy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    891
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    I would still pick option 2 if it were only the french final vs Nadal.
     
    #12
  13. raphMODE

    raphMODE Professional

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    France
    Well... Even if I agree with you all about winning FO by beating Nadal in the final, getting the record of titles at Wimby and USO would be amazing too...
    + Most of the people remember the true Tennis Legends by the number of slams won, and the number of title by slam. Not really any of the other records/tournaments.

    Would pick option 1, maybe...
    (don't throw anything on me, please. thanks)
     
    #13
  14. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    He's already remembered enough. I rather see him winning 10 more things than just two. Beating Nadal would be cool. Not only in the FO but everytime. Winning Rio, same thing.
     
    #14
  15. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Majors are Majors.

    Option 1.
     
    #15
  16. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,238
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    It'd still be option 2 if the ONLY part of option 2 was beating Rafa in the finals.

    with all the other stuff added in, it's not even close.
     
    #16
  17. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,102
    Location:
    Australia
    Option two.
     
    #17
  18. single_handed_champion

    single_handed_champion Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    In addition, option 2 would mean he still wins a huge prize in 2016 (in addition to beating Nadal all the time), meaning he might even continue at that point :shock:. If he just wins an odd Slam in 4 years and be barren otherwise, it is kinda unlikely he would stick around for that long.

    On the other hand, option 1 is way way way likelier.
     
    #18
  19. Candide

    Candide Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Yabba, the greatest little place on Earth
    It's interesting that so many people are picking option 2. I think that the rivalry between the two is magnified in the frothy arguments on this site. There's no doubt that Federer would like to get the monkey off his back on the biggest stage but I still believe that it's probably not as big an issue for him as many people who repeatedly post "H2H!" believe it to be. Just because I think that with a cool head and a view to History he would choose the two majors and not give a crap if he beat a limping Radek Stepanek to get there.
     
    #19
  20. Shaolin

    Shaolin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,103
    Location:
    Kansas

    You conveniently forget that both the US Open and WTF are "Roger's house" as well.
     
    #20
  21. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Option 2. At this point every major is great but is 19 going to be that much better than 18? If no one else beats Fed's slam count then it doesn't matter.Nadal could get close to it, even get 17 but Fed getting all those things in option 2 would put him above Nadal anyway.
     
    #21
  22. Federer20042006

    Federer20042006 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,173
    Option 2 - the singles gold medal is the defining point there. That would end any objections people have about him not completely fulfilling his career goals, not to mention beating Nadal at RG/overtaking the head to head.
     
    #22
  23. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    No, it is not.

    A Title from a Major is times more valuable than an OG medal. Besides, Federer is highly decorated Olympian as it is, so.

    This leaves us with the other accomplishments:

    DC win. Although a nice thing to have in your resume it still is a team effort. It is not a personal achievement.

    Another YE#1. Nice, but Federer will be sharing this record.

    H2H with Nadal. While having a positive H2H with your main rival is nice, it is nowhere as significant as all the other things, that constitute a successfull singles career. What counts are the titles and the overall dominance.

    So, basically one, who is choosing option numer one is trading an OG and a shared record (the things that would really matter in someone's singles career) against

    1 Major Title and a record number of titles at two of the four Majors (Wimbledon 8, US Open 6 or AO 5) in the Open era.

    I think, that that is a pretty good tradeoff.

    And, even if Federer ticks all the boxes from option 2, there will still be morons, to claim more and more things, that he hasn't done, in an effort to bring him down.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
    #23
  24. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    He won't do any of those things so who cares.
     
    #24
  25. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,159
    Location:
    Toronto
    Option 2.....Just beating Nadal at the French Open final is enough....way more worth than winning 2 other majors.

    At least in the history books.....facing Nadal wasn't always for naught.
     
    #25
  26. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I value one Grand Slam over every head-to-head record in the world but this is different. Beating Nadal at Roland Garros is a magical achievement. I actually value it more than winning the French Open, even though it's, in reality, just a match. I don't know what Federer would choose but I'd choose 2. I don't care about the Gold or the head-to-head against Nadal, just that win over Nadal at Roland Garros.
     
    #26
  27. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    WTF you talking about?
     
    #27
  28. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I think he's talking about vehicles.
     
    #28
  29. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Vehicle Warehouse discussion board that way ----------->
     
    #29
  30. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,883
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    He's saying the answer is an obvious one, without actually saying it. It's an exaggerated analogy.
     
    #30
  31. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I went that way and walked into my bedroom door :)
     
    #31
  32. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Consider yourself lucky. It's the middle of the day here in Melbourne and I'm at work wishing I was near my bedroom door.
     
    #32
  33. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm aware he is suggesting one is more obvious than the other, but which is that in his opinion? Not everyone has chosen the same option.
     
    #33
  34. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Yeah, the answer certainly isn't very obvious. Very divisive options.
     
    #34
  35. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,883
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I would say it's option 2.
     
    #35
  36. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I designed it to be like that. My op questions just how much value you would place on one major.
     
    #36
  37. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Or how little there is, to match that value.
     
    #37
  38. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Of course.

    But that's why I wanted to make it evenly matched as possible. One extra slam for Federer...or...everything that he has not won.
     
    #38
  39. 10is

    10is Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,451
    Exactly! Option 1 -- for me it's not even debatable.
     
    #39
  40. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    In about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds I chose option 2. A second RG title is what I want Roger to achieve the most, and I value other records in tennis than just how many Slam events one has won. Today's naive and misinformed perception of the hierarchy of achievements and their magnitude will eventually change, I'm quite sure. Things like overall tournaments won, time as the number 1 player, general versatility of achievements, they all matter too. Option 2 just provides too many excellent achievements, so I can't turn it down.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2012
    #40
  41. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    What an totally absurd thread we have here.

    -Federer will not win 2 more slams.

    -Federer will not win the DC (who with??).

    -Federer will not still be playing by 2016 and even is he would (which he won't) he won't stand a chance as a 35 year old.
     
    #41
  42. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    I can understand, that you have your preferences about a second RG.

    But, the bolded part is a bit confusing.

    In the option 2, there is no promise, that Federer will achieve more tournament wins (Olympic games plus RG vs. 2 Majors). All other things can be achieved without winning anything else (like I said, DC is not part of the singles career anyway).

    His verasitility is as pronounced as it gets. With or without a second RG.

    And his time at the top. Well, I doubt, that anyone can question his dominance in the game during his peak years, so, none of this needs to be achieved now.

    Everybody has some weaknesses in his resume. Including the great Laver. No need to resort to extremes.
     
    #42
  43. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    That isn't the point. It was just to demonstrate that there is more to a player's resume than the 'number of Slams'. It doesn't matter if the extra options I stated were specifically in relation to the exact question as they were there merely to demonstrate a point which by extension further consolidates my reasoning also behind choosing option 2 (with ease).

    To answer the question more concretely and specifically, option 2 gives Federer more positive elements in his overall resume, as he'd have won almost every title going, have 2 career Grand Slams, and rectified a negative head to head against another all time great (regardless of how big or small people find this point, it does exist and is still a part of the resume that will be judged, and his career is even better with yet another 'hole filled' in).

    Option 1 gives him an extra Slam, big whoop about 18 vs 19...

    It's time for the current perception regarding the grotesquely lopsided magnitude of Slams to change. Other achievements are being too slighted as a result.
     
    #43
  44. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Also the idea that a man could return to number 1 and end the year as the number 1 at the age of 32 plus is far too irresistible.
     
    #44
  45. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    You chose to criticise me about the hypotheticals of Federer winning 2 more slams, Federer winning the DC and Fed playing until 2016. Yet Federer finding a genie in a bottle is perfectly okay with you.

    Right then.
     
    #45
  46. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Meheheheheh.
     
    #46
  47. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    You chose the wrong options to make your point. No biggie.

    I have excplicitly stated what the one and the other option give.

    You may perceive 2 Career Grand Slams and a positive H2H with Nadal as more "positive", than Federer further distancing himself from the rest of the field in the Open era Majors count and holding the number of titles record at two of the four Majors. I don't. Especially, if one of those two Majors is Wimbledon (or, for that matter, if both 2 Major titles are at SW19, giving him 9 overall)

    There are all sorts of weaknesses in everybody's resume. Noone has a perfect resume and never will have one.

    So it really is a choice between playing on your strengths or rectifying your weaknesses. I know what I would choose.;-)


    Yet, you talk about 2 Career Grand Slams, when we know perfectly well, that it is a term, used (in general) to just show the versatility of certain player and is even less meaningful, in the grand scheme of things.

    Why engage in counting meaningless "achievements", if the number of Majors won is so overinflated, according to you?

    The Majors are and will forever (as far as the Game is the same) be the most important thing in Tennis. There is some confusion about their importance, because of the separation before the Open era, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

    As every Major title is a monumental achievement in itself (and more so now with the unified field and tournament scheme than before) I do not understand how people are disregarding the difference between 18 and 19. How come that it doesn't matter so much?

    I hear you say, that for Federer to get the #1 position at the age of 32 would be massive. Sure, you will agree, that to get Wimbledon (or even two of those) at 32 or later would be massive too (it would be general conisistency against superhigh tennis level).


    I think, that a lot of historians are slanted towards the old romantic perception of Tennis, being a sport within rivalries. A perception, that is wrong in itself, since the rivalries happen along the way and, in general, no two playerrs of the same generation are modified around their main rival's style. Even Nadal's style, which can be described as the worst possible matchup issue related to Federer's game, doesn't fit the bill exactly (although being the closest to modelling his game around someone elses's weaknesses).

    H2Hs can be and are largely a product of circumstances. No need to overinflate that.
     
    #47
  48. xFullCourtTenniSx

    xFullCourtTenniSx Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,960
    This is so stacked... Either way, he CRUSHED Sampras' record for majors. He CRUSHED the consecutive weeks at #1 that Jimmy Connors set. He CRUSHED the total weeks at #1. He should also have the most year end #1s by now. Parts 1 and 2 of option 2 are enough to make it the better choice. The only thing he's missing is an Olympic Gold in singles (he has one in doubles as well). Even if he won the French Open by sheer luck of Soderling taking out Nadal, it's still a career slam. Giving him a FO while taking out Nadal would stamp him as the complete player, even if only by a single instance (though if Nadal was playing terribly, there'd STILL be some controversial doubt, but it's still freakin' Nadal on clay).

    Davis Cup is usually associate with some greats. Sampras, Agassi, and McEnroe have won the Davis Cup before, which is great for their country. It's not massive, but it's totally something to say that you CARRIED your team past some stacked teams like Argentina, Spain, and (formerly) the US.

    Giving him the head to head lead on Nadal (especially in essentially the end of Federer's career) completely shuts out cries that Federer could not beat his one true rival. He has the largest deficit in a head to head matchup against a rival.

    The extra year end number 1 is totally irrelevant, but a nice little thing to have.

    I mean, it is indisputable that Federer DOMINATED tennis during his era, and even put up a strong showing in the later part of his career (31 and STILL got to #1 and stole another major against a field as stacked as this). Nobody else could say that. Sure, Connors could say he had 200 consecutive weeks at number 1 (which is pretty damn dominant), but Federer shattered that and played better than Connors in the later part of their careers. Agassi had periods of domination, AND played well at the end of his career, but his domination doesn't even compared to Federer's. Maybe if the early part of Agassi's life was a bit better, he could've been, and we'd be talking about Agassi instead of Sampras as a GOAT candidate (though Sampras will always possess the greatest serve of all time).

    Not for a while will ANYONE be able to say they dominated tennis the same way Federer did. He dominated from age 21 to age 26. Even after that period of time, he STILL picked up majors like any candidate for #1 in the world at their prime would do. Even right after Federer retires, I doubt anyone could pull this off. Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal will easily stop them. And none of these players will dominate the tour the same way Federer did. They're 25, 25, and 26 years old respectively. For Djokovic to do what Federer did, he'd have to dominate the next 4 years, until he's 29 years old. That's VERY unlikely to happen because he's at the tip of his prime. The same could be said for Murray and Nadal, and neither are really in the position to pull it off the same way Djokovic can (since Djokovic is currently the world #1).

    AFTER these 3 retire, then MAYBE we could see someone do what Federer did. But for them to do better, they would have to start winning from the age of 19 or 20. Nadal had the opportunity, but he took a while to break out outside of clay courts. Then when he did, he got hit with injuries, and when he came back, Djokovic broke into his stride for possibly the best streak anyone could have. And now, Murray has finally got his head together and is a force to be reckoned with. He still has a ways to go, but he's definitely a threat for major titles now. Before, he was a bit of a pushover in finals, but now he will play you for the trophy, and he's got weapons.

    You could try to argue that Federer faced bad competition in his prime, but the previous generation of players would absolutely say that these new players were truly a force to be reckoned with, but Federer made them look like a joke on the court. Yeah, Agassi at 30+ pushed Federer to 5 sets in the 2004 US Open, and 4 sets in the 2005 US Open final, but Federer in the same situation did that to Djokovic twice, with match points in the fifth, pushing him to the limit, and even kicked him out of the French Open in 2011 and Wimbledon in 2012. Agassi never kicked Federer out of a major once Federer started winning. So is Djokovic's competition a joke because he's getting pushed to his limits by a 30 year old? That this 30 year old is still making semifninals and final appearances in majors? I guess Djokovic's best year came because his competition was terrible as well. And since he couldn't dominate his terrible competition in the same way Federer did, then he must be worse than Federer.

    In terms of players dominating their era, Federer will always be the best. And he didn't have as easy of a time doing it as everyone thinks. He just made it look easy, as he does with his amazing forehand, serve, backhands, and net play. He just MAKES things look easy. Djokovic and Nadal grunt, scream, stretch, and grind for every shot which makes it LOOK like it's harder for them. In terms on who is legitimately the best player in their prime, it will always be the newest generation of tennis players. Though I would say prime Federer beats prime Djokovic because his forehand and movement was SICK and in 2006 his backhand improved markedly. Federer never missed a shot and pulled the ridiculous off his racket. Whoever is the best tennis players 2 generations from now, however, will probably be a better tennis player than Federer. He will be faster, more fit, mentally tougher, hit at least as hard, and generate the topspin of Nadal. Think of a Federer, Delpo, Rafa, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga combination. Scary to think of, right? Well it will happen because the newer generations always come in stronger and stronger than the ones before them (though rarely is it a significant difference as it was with Sampras, Federer, and Nadal).

    I don't care how good Borg or Laver were. Federer will **** on them in every surface. Yes, the difference in strings and rackets made a huge difference, but Federer is also a better athlete than Laver, and he regularly dealt with Rafa on clay, who is Borg on steroids.

    And as much as I hate to admit it, Federer in his prime will also probably **** on Sampras in his prime except on very old grass, where Sampras' serve and play style and truly shine and put Federer on defense. But it will still be close because we saw Federer still get back the serves of Philippoussis and Roddick on the 2003 grass (which is still much slower than the grass of the early 90s, but it still says something about his ability to get into rallies against big serves).

    30 or 40 years from now, some guy will come around, probably not dominate his era like Federer did, but will still **** on Federer in his prime on any surface. He will **** on Nadal in his prime on clay (maybe), and he will **** on Djokovic in his prime on any surface. I'm sure eventually someone will come along that will essentially be Nadal on steroids... Then Borg will look like a joke, but hey, he dominated the French and Wimbledon in his time, and started a revolution in tennis with his (then) insane topspin.
     
    #48
  49. OrangePower

    OrangePower Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,058
    Location:
    NorCal Bay Area
    The question here is, what do we think *Federer* would pick; not what we think would leave him with the more prestigious resume.

    I think the answer is clearly option 2. At this point I think Fed is playing for personal satisfaction and not for the record books. And I think option 2 would give him more satisfaction than option 1.
     
    #49
  50. Federer20042006

    Federer20042006 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,173
    You're kidding yourself if you think a gold in singles at the Olympics isn't huge. You seem to be going off ATP point value...just ask the players what its value is. Many of them consider it as important as winning a slam.

    I'll bet most of them would even take it over the Australian Open, in fact.

    Federer's gold in doubles doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight, and a silver medal in singles for someone of his caliber isn't a particularly big accomplishment.

    Winning 19 slams instead of 18...meh. Even if he got the most in the open era of two different slams, it wouldn't be nearly as salient a fact about him as saying that he has the "Career Golden Slam."
     
    #50

Share This Page