What would Federer choose if given this choice?

[The Bawss]

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

In about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000001 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.

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

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.

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

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.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

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.

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Blocker

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.

Meheheheheh.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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).

You chose the wrong options to make your point. No biggie.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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)..

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.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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

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?

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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.

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.

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Originally Posted by Blocker

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?

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.

[OrangePower]

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.

[Federer20042006]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

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.

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."

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

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.

An OG medal have no place in the same sentence as a title from a Major.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

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

You are dead wrong about that one. I am sure, although I am not a Pro tennis player.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

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.

You clearly do not understand the value of an OG medal.

The concept of the Olympic games is such, that EVERY gold medal is a sign of sporting excellence. It puts the country of the player on the map for the world to see. This is not in anyway influenced by the number of people, who get the job done. Phelps has won a lot of his OG medals as a result from a team effort, where he wasn't particularly strong. This doesn't mean, that they are less valuable.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

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."

Career Golden Slam is some journalist invention. As is Serena Slam and whatnot.

The truth is, that before 2008 a lot of the tennis Pros just didn't care about the Olympics.

About the continuing debate about 18 vs. 19.

The people, who say it is not a bigger deal than an OG or a positive H2H are kidding themselves.

How many people have such numbers in the Open era?

It is enough to think about what it takes to win even one Major, to be able to appreciate the winning of another later in someone's career. Look at what happened, when Federer won his 7th Wimbledon, beating two of the top 4 players (the defending champion amongst them). Winning a Major in the later stages of someone's career maybe considered more difficult than the same thing happening at someone's peak.

Actually. People, who say, that 18 vs 19 is not a big deal are comitting the same sin, that they accuse the others of comitting - they are busy with excessive counting. Clearly, for them 18 or 19 is ammere number. Majors are Majors, and no amount of H2H or Olympic BS will change that fact. The bigger the boy the better his Major title collection.

[Prisoner of Birth]

What people don't realize is that the difference between 18 and 19 is a lot more than the difference between, say, 7 and 8. 17 Grand Slams is insanity. 18 Slams would be insanityX2. It's not a big deal for a player who has won 2 or 3 Slams to wins a 3rd or 4th. But for a player who had won 17 Slams to win an 18th or 19th one is all the more staggering, because they're in uncharted territory as it is and they're likely not in their 20s anymore. Saying, "17 or 18 or 19, what's the difference, he already has the record," is craziness, plain and simple. 99% of pro players would kill to win that one Slam.

[Federer20042006]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

The concept of the Olympic games is such, that EVERY gold medal is a sign of sporting excellence. It puts the country of the player on the map for the world to see. This is not in anyway influenced by the number of people, who get the job done. Phelps has won a lot of his OG medals as a result from a team effort, where he wasn't particularly strong. This doesn't mean, that they are less valuable.

It's not about the importance of the Olympics themselves - it's how tennis views them. And they're considered by many players to be as valuable as a Grand Slam these days. That's what the players themselves say, and that's what matters.

Career Golden Slam is some journalist invention. As is Serena Slam and whatnot.

What it represents isn't some journalist invention. Steffi Graf's 1988 season is the standard in women's tennis for a reason.

The truth is, that before 2008 a lot of the tennis Pros just didn't care about the Olympics.

Yeah, and before 2004, a lot of tennis pros didn't care about the Australian Open.

They care now. A lot. And the Olympics aren't going anywhere. With each passing Olympics games, tennis will have a larger pool of winners and a richer Olympic history.

About the continuing debate about 18 vs. 19.

The people, who say it is not a bigger deal than an OG or a positive H2H are kidding themselves.

How many people have such numbers in the Open era?

It is enough to think about what it takes to win even one Major, to be able to appreciate the winning of another later in someone's career. Look at what happened, when Federer won his 7th Wimbledon, beating two of the top 4 players (the defending champion amongst them). Winning a Major in the later stages of someone's career maybe considered more difficult than the same thing happening at someone's peak.

Then the media claims that said player is a better player than he was when he was younger, the competition just got stronger, and they use the slam win/wins to argue their case.

Actually. People, who say, that 18 vs 19 is not a big deal are comitting the same sin, that they accuse the others of comitting - they are busy with excessive counting. Clearly, for them 18 or 19 is ammere number. Majors are Majors, and no amount of H2H or Olympic BS will change that fact. The bigger the boy the better his Major title collection.

I think Federer would rather have 18 and Olympic gold in singles than 19 and only the medals he has. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it.

[Federer20042006]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

What people don't realize is that the difference between 18 and 19 is a lot more than the difference between, say, 7 and 8. 17 Grand Slams is insanity. 18 Slams would be insanityX2. It's not a big deal for a player who has won 2 or 3 Slams to wins a 3rd or 4th. But for a player who had won 17 Slams to win an 18th or 19th one is all the more staggering, because they're in uncharted territory as it is and they're likely not in their 20s anymore. Saying, "17 or 18 or 19, what's the difference, he already has the record," is craziness, plain and simple. 99% of pro players would kill to win that one Slam.

Yeah, until someone comes along and breaks the slam record. If someone is going to get to 18, there's a good chance they're going to get to 19. No count is ever safe. Records are made to be broken.

However, if a player wins the career Grand Slam and Olympic gold in singles...nobody can ever take that away from him. You can only win everything once...once.

Basically, this is the same as arguing that Federer would have preferred to end with 15 non-French Open majors over 14 with a French Open. Variety/completeness counts in tennis. It's what gives Federer the edge over Pete Sampras.

Otherwise, just looking at both of their strengths - on faster courts - they're basically even, with a slight edge to Sampras in the faster slams.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Yeah, until someone comes along and breaks the slam record. If someone is going to get to 18, there's a good chance they're going to get to 19. No count is ever safe. Records are made to be broken.

No, winning slams gets harder and harder over time, when you get into 15+ territory and especially at the twilight stage of Fed's career every additional slam has tremendous value.

Also remember, Fed grew up idolizing Sampras and thus very likely values slam count above everything else.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

However, if a player wins the career Grand Slam and Olympic gold in singles...nobody can ever take that away from him. You can only win everything once...once.

Sorry, but SOG just doesn't have anywhere near the same historic value as slams do, if we look at the history of the sport the vast majority of tennis greats couldn't even compete at the Olympics, tennis simply wasn't an Olympic sport for the majority of its existence (was till 1924 then wasn't all the way until 1988 ).

I know Fed haters like yourself obsess over SOG because that's one of the rare things Fed doesn't have but that's your subjective view influenced heavily by your personal bias.

It doesn't matter whether anyone can take your SOG away from you or not, when comparing tennis greats the "meat" of the career is about slam performances (# of slams won, Calendar Grand slam, Career Grand Slam etc.), overall dominance (time spent as the world's best player) etc. SOG is a bonus, it's only the highlight of one's career if you're Nicholas Massu or something.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Basically, this is the same as arguing that Federer would have preferred to end with 15 non-French Open majors over 14 with a French Open.

No, it's definitely not the same, here you're arguing about slams not about bonus stuff like SOG, DC, H2H etc.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Variety/completeness counts in tennis. It's what gives Federer the edge over Pete Sampras.

Variety/completeness in slam performances, the main knock on Sampras was always him being a non-contender at FO (made one measly FO SF in his entire career) and arguably the lack of truly dominant tennis seasons (like for example Laver's CYGS, Fed's 3 slam years, Novak's 2011, Nadal's 2010 etc.) , not because he didn't have a SOG or trails in masters record when compared to Nadal, Fed, Lendl and Agassi for example.

Besides that's hardly the only area in which Fed has the edge over Sampras, here's the list of the top of my head:

-3 more slams
-More weeks at #1
-5 USOs in a row
-5 Wimbledons in a row (was regarded as one of the greatest achievement in the history of tennis when Borg did it in his day)
-3 years in which he won 3 slams (compared to zero)
-2 years in which he reached 4 slam finals (compared to zero)
-Their performance at their weakest slam- FO (5 finals and a title compared to one final)

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Otherwise, just looking at both of their strengths - on faster courts - they're basically even, with a slight edge to Sampras in the faster slams.

You don't compare players solely by their strengths (otherwise Nadal is the GOAT basically because no one dominate any surface to the degree he did clay), you look at players' overall careers, not to mention that it's your subjective opinion Sampras gets the edge in faster slams, many would disagree on that.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

It's not about the importance of the Olympics themselves - it's how tennis views them. And they're considered by many players to be as valuable as a Grand Slam these days. That's what the players themselves say, and that's what matters.




What it represents isn't some journalist invention. Steffi Graf's 1988 season is the standard in women's tennis for a reason.



Yeah, and before 2004, a lot of tennis pros didn't care about the Australian Open.

They care now. A lot. And the Olympics aren't going anywhere. With each passing Olympics games, tennis will have a larger pool of winners and a richer Olympic history.




Then the media claims that said player is a better player than he was when he was younger, the competition just got stronger, and they use the slam win/wins to argue their case.



I think Federer would rather have 18 and Olympic gold in singles than 19 and only the medals he has. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it.

I won't respond point for point, but the bolded part better be a joke. Unless you're saying people didn't start caring about the Australian until Federer won it the first time and trying to relate it to Nadal winning the OG. The AO is a legit GS now, and has been since the mid to late 80's. Remember the Olympics is only once every 4 years. Completely different from a slam even though both the AO and the Olympics have only been "legitimate" for about 25 years.

The Olympics will grow, you are correct about that, but it should never be put on the same level as the slams regardless what the players tell you IMO. I think its importance to the players lies more in the fact that they're playing for their country than anything else. Of course it is also nice as an individual accomplishment, but I'm inclined to agree Tennis_Hands in that the whole "Career Golden Slam" thing is a bit of a media driven term. The reason Steffi's 1988 season is the standard in womens tennis is not because she won OG (that was its first year since 1924 that it was a medal sport if I'm not mistaken), it's mostly because she won the CYGS. I think Olympic medals are more important in sports that don't get a lot of coverage and don't have a regular tour so to speak, like swimming or track and field, among numerous other things.

I think for example that if option 2 was simply 18 majors (may or may not be the FO and may or may not beat Nadal in Paris to get it) and an OG in singles, versus 19 majors, Federer would take the 19 majors option especially if you consider he would have a silver from this year, but because option 2 is pretty stacked in comparison to option 1 it's tough to pick against it.

[zam88]

option 1 would be more appealing if i could've had 3 majors.


I take option 2 as written, and it's not close.



if option 1 was 3 majors, I'd chose that

[Hood_Man]

I think achieving Option 1 and ending his career with 19 might be slightly irritating in hindsight, "Damn und blast, If I'd only won 1 more I would have reached 20!"

I'd go for #2 to get the Olympic Gold in singles and Davis Cup.

[RogerFan1991]

Option 2. One more major doesnt make the difference, nobody will remember you for winning one more or not, but it will definitely be remembered if federer finally beats nadal at FO, and not to say if he wins the gold medal at age 34. Those would be the biggest achievements for him during all his carrer.

[tennisaddict]

I am sure Fed wants Option 1 without any doubt. Separates him further from the crowd.

Option 2 is dumb, who cares .. Fed has already won a FO, has gold in the 187 point (750/4) tourney, H2H has no relevance, year end no 1 means nothing.. 302+ weeks is all that counts.