Would Federer have won more slams if his initial goal was 20 instead of 14 ?

How many slams would Fed have won if his initial goal was 20 instead of 14?

  • Total voters
    6
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
When Sampras set the slam record at 14, Federer's goal is to surpass him by winning 15 slams. Federer successfully met his goal in 2009 Wimbledon by breaking his record before his 28th birthday. Of course he still had motivation/drive but it was not nearly the same since the pressure was off his back. Let say that Pete set a record at 20 and Federer's goal was to break 20 instead of 14, I believe Federer would be more determine/focus and thus would have won a lot more slams when he was 28 years old. With a goal set in mind down the line, he would have won at around 23-25 slams at the age of 35.

Djokodal has an advantage because their goal/target is 21 instead of 15, so the motivation/drive remains the at constant level until their goal is met. Unlike Federer's level was drastically decrease because he met his goal before turning 28.
 
Towser83

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Maybe. Records are made to be broken and when you pass that target motivation does become harder probably. But Djokovic and Nadal still are chasing a target like Federer did, the only difference is it's a moving one. However Fed has at least been able to keep himself in the game as he didn't retired and then see someone make an assualt on his record

I don't think Fed would have got to 25 slams by 35. Nadal and Djokovic would have still been chasing Fed so it's not like Fed would be the only one motivated. Plus the year Fed was 35 was 2016, even if we give him to 2017 Wimbledon when he won his 19th Slam, where would he have won an extra 4 - 6 slams?
 
Milehigh5280

Milehigh5280

Professional
I don't think so because that implies he didn't win more slams because he wasn't motivated enough, which I think Fed would be insulted by that accusation. I don't believe motivation or drive has ever been a problem for Fed. He didn't win more slams simply because two of the greatest players ever entered their prime while he left his.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Towser83 said:
Maybe. Records are made to be broken and when you pass that target motivation does become harder probably. But Djokovic and Nadal still are chasing a target like Federer did, the only difference is it's a moving one. However Fed has at least been able to keep himself in the game as he didn't retired and then see someone make an assualt on his record
Click to expand...

Tennis is mostly mental, and when a Djokodal are in better situation than Federer at the same age(28) means they have a greater chances of winning. Yes, Federer still compete hard because Djokodal are chasing him, but he flip the switch in the latter years cost him dearly. Rather than stay mentally motivated/focus at 28 instead of waiting for Djokodal threaten his record, he would have better results. If Federer at 28 had a time machine in knowing Djokodal would have won 17 and 14 slams in 2019, he would have been more focus and determine.

Towser83 said:
I don't think Fed would have got to 25 slams by 35. Nadal and Djokovic would have still been chasing Fed so it's not like Fed would be the only one motivated. Plus the year Fed was 35 was 2016, even if we give him to 2017 Wimbledon when he won his 19th Slam, where would he have won an extra 4 - 6 slams?
Click to expand...
Federer squandered many opportunities to win more slams after he broke Sampras's record. He lost some very tight one. I believe had the target was 20, Federer mentally would made the difference, especially the 2009 USO against Del Potro.
 
Last edited:
Im(moral) Winner

Im(moral) Winner

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
Federer squandered many opportunities to win more slams after he broke Sampras's record. He lost some very tight one. I believe had the target was 20, Federer mentally would made the difference, especially the 2009 USO against Del Potro.
Click to expand...
He also squandered a few when he was still chasing the record, huehue
 
Im(moral) Winner

Im(moral) Winner

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
Hardly when you compare to post 2009 Wimbledon.

Keep in mind Federer won 11 slams between 2004-2007, and that was his peak motivation/focus because he was chasing 14.
Click to expand...
2005 AO, 2008 W and 2009 AO and a French or two.
That was just natural decline and injuries after 2010 AO.
"Not motivated enough" was 90s clay hilarious excuse for PETE not achieving as much as Fed.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Im(moral) Winner said:
2005 AO, 2008 W and 2009 AO and a French or two.
That was just natural decline and injuries after 2010 AO.
"Not motivated enough" was 90s clay hilarious excuse for PETE not achieving as much as Fed.
Click to expand...
The bolded ones are due to Fed being so close to Pete's record.

Just look at Nadal how tough it is to play well when the slam record is on the line.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Im(moral) Winner said:
2005 AO, 2008 W and 2009 AO and a French or two.
That was just natural decline and injuries after 2010 AO.
"Not motivated enough" was 90s clay hilarious excuse for PETE not achieving as much as Fed.
Click to expand...

You're asking for a player to be perfect with no hiccup and that's completely impossible.

Another thing is Federer broke Sampras's record before his 28th birthday, so 90's clay argument doesn't have much merit. OTOH, Djokodal was far from Federer's record at the same respective age.
 
Im(moral) Winner

Im(moral) Winner

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
You're asking for a player to be perfect with no hiccup and that's completely impossible.

Another thing is Federer broke Sampras's record before his 28th birthday, so 90's clay argument doesn't have much merit. OTOH, Djokodal was far from Federer's record at the same respective age.
Click to expand...
In that scenarios he can still take most of the FOs easily so not perfect.
90s clay used to imply PETE could have achieved more had he had bigger target for more motivation just like you are now.
 
jklos

jklos

Professional
Fed would have more slams if two of the other greatest players of all time were not in the next generation to follow him. Probably ten more.
 
Pheasant

Pheasant

Legend
I don't think that it would have mattered much either way. The fact that Fed has been hearing footsteps from Nadal for the last 9 years should have been enough motivation. Nadal looked likely to catch Fed after the 2010 season. He won 3 straight slam events and cut Fed's lead to 16-10. And Nadal was only 24 at that time. Also, Nadal was serving like a maniac in the 2010 USO. Nadal seemed like a more motivated version of Borg. He matched Borg with 10 slam titles by the end of his age 24 season(nobody else can say this in the Open Era). But now, Nadal proved that he was a heavyweight on hard courts too. Nadal getting to 17-18 slams seemed like a real possibility. If this didn't motivate Fed, then I don't know what would have.
 
Dedans Penthouse

Dedans Penthouse

Legend
TMF said:
When Sampras set the slam record at 14, Federer's goal is to surpass him by winning 15 slams. Federer successfully met his goal in 2009 Wimbledon by breaking his record before his 28th birthday. Of course he still had motivation/drive but it was not nearly the same since the pressure was off his back. Let say that Pete set a record at 20 and Federer's goal was to break 20 instead of 14,

I believe Federer would be more determine/focus and thus
would have won a lot more slams

when he was 28 years old. With a goal set in mind down the line, he would have won at around 23-25 slams at the age of 35.

Djokodal has an advantage because their goal/target is 21 instead of 15, so the motivation/drive remains the at constant level until their goal is met. Unlike Federer's level was drastically decrease because he met his goal before turning 28.
Click to expand...
Post of the year!!! . Of course he would've won "a lot more slams" because after all Roger Federer was always prone to letdowns especially given his questionable competitive spirit to begin with - it's how he got to be ("only") a 20x Grand Slam champion. . Roger Federer never "played the point" nor was he the type of player who was "engaged" and "in the moment" .....no!....Fed was always thinking to himself: "14!....just let me get to 15!" during play; during the heat of battle. . And once he hit that magic number....his competitive spirit flickered out like a flame......yeah that was it.

That's why he won last year's AO at 36. . That's why he's still successfully competing at 37.

anyone tell you that your uncanny insights border on genius?

Or, . . you still want to hang your hat on that one Fredo?
.
 
Last edited:
Benben245

Benben245

Banned
At one point Federer thought about retiring after winning his first slam so this thread is a little silly. The visualizations of his goals changed over time. Tennis is not 'the secret'
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
No option for 20 lol. It wouldn't have changed anything because he has tried to win every major he has entered and was having to compete with 2-4 guys who were just as competitive when chasing majors.
 
Nadalgaenger

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I think the subtext of this thread is: "How many more slams would Sampras have today if he'd had a higher target?"

That's a legitimate question, especially since he retired after a slam victory and presumably would have competed in, dare I say it, a "weak era" from 2001-2003.

Then again, how many more slams would Borg have if he had played the Australian Open and actually cared about GOAT status, message boards, etc.
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Might be unpopular but if Nadal and Djokovic weren't around to chase Federer and worry him about his record, he probably wouldn't have even gotten to 20.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Slightly D1 said:
Might be unpopular but if Nadal and Djokovic weren't around to chase Federer and worry him about his record, he probably wouldn't have even gotten to 20.
Click to expand...
This. He would have retired in 2011 or 2012 already. I'm glad he didn't, because 7-8 more years of Fed is still much better than 0.

So I guess I should thank Nadal and Djokovic for still keeping Federer active for several more years.
 
S

Stilljonesing

Rookie
TMF said:
Tennis is mostly mental, and when a Djokodal are in better situation than Federer at the same age(28) means they have a greater chances of winning. Yes, Federer still compete hard because Djokodal are chasing him, but he flip the switch in the latter years cost him dearly. Rather than stay mentally motivated/focus at 28 instead of waiting for Djokodal threaten his record, he would have better results. If Federer at 28 had a time machine in knowing Djokodal would have won 17 and 14 slams in 2019, he would have been more focus and determine.


Federer squandered many opportunities to win more slams after he broke Sampras's record. He lost some very tight one. I believe had the target was 20, Federer mentally would made the difference, especially the 2009 USO against Del Potro.
Click to expand...

I think this question is pretty dumb question honestly. I doubt he even started with the goal of only trying to win 15, I'm sure he was trying to win everything. Even if you buy into your take that he lost motivation by 2009 Fed wasn't blind. He probably knew he was going to need more than 15 to maintain the record after Nadal beat him at Wimbledon and had racked up 6 by the age of 22 and start of 2009. No doubt he would have known he better put his foot on the gas even at that point if that dude could beating him on grass and would own Clay. He probably had some inclination of Djokovic's talent as well even at that point as he had won a slam.
 
DSH

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
this kind of thread are always the same, my favorite player should, would, have won more majors.
What happens next does not matter, there is already a pretext to explain why in the future the records of my idol have been surpassed and to diminish the player who gets it.
 
Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
No. He won every slam he was capable of winning. And a few he was very lucky indeed to win.

But 20 slams is hardly to be sniffed at. Only Laver would have beaten that total if he had been able to play during his peak years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Djokovic2011

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
All I'm seeing from the OP is frustration that Djokovic and Nadal are edging closer to his idol's slam record. It couldn't be any clearer if he had it tattooed on his forehead.
 
O

ONgame

Semi-Pro
This isn't how it works, smart people set incremental (also realistic) goals, achieve that first, then figure out what to do next.
 
Red Rick

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
mike danny said:
The bolded ones are due to Fed being so close to Pete's record.

Just look at Nadal how tough it is to play well when the slam record is on the line.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Slam record was the reason as much as it was the presence of an opponent that's putting on a huge amount of pressure every match. Losing the #1 position and being overtaken by Nadal in the here and now seemed a much bigger problem.
 
CYGS

CYGS

Legend
TMF said:
When Sampras set the slam record at 14, Federer's goal is to surpass him by winning 15 slams. Federer successfully met his goal in 2009 Wimbledon by breaking his record before his 28th birthday. Of course he still had motivation/drive but it was not nearly the same since the pressure was off his back. Let say that Pete set a record at 20 and Federer's goal was to break 20 instead of 14, I believe Federer would be more determine/focus and thus would have won a lot more slams when he was 28 years old. With a goal set in mind down the line, he would have won at around 23-25 slams at the age of 35.

Djokodal has an advantage because their goal/target is 21 instead of 15, so the motivation/drive remains the at constant level until their goal is met. Unlike Federer's level was drastically decrease because he met his goal before turning 28.
Click to expand...
I thought Djokovic winning 14 was already too much. This post exposed your hypocrisy.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Red Rick said:
I don't think the Slam record was the reason as much as it was the presence of an opponent that's putting on a huge amount of pressure every match. Losing the #1 position and being overtaken by Nadal in the here and now seemed a much bigger problem.
Click to expand...
And it was a big problem because Fed felt the pressure of the slam record.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
GabeT said:
So which slams would he have supposedly won, that he didn’t, if Sampras had won 20?
Click to expand...
2009 USO final.
He wouldn't choked those match points he had in 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals either. And likely to win 2011 in the final
Wimbledon 2014 was extremely close and could have gone either way.
There are other slam finals and semifinals that he lost.

The point is tennis is mostly mental, and it's hard to stay highly motivated when you're already broke the record. He would have more chances if the record was 20 instead of 14.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
CYGS said:
I thought Djokovic winning 14 was already too much. This post exposed your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
It's not about fans believe the big three have won too much(which is true), but the big themselves want to win more.

Capiche ?
 
Mark-Touch

Mark-Touch

Legend
TMF said:
When Sampras set the slam record at 14, Federer's goal is to surpass him by winning 15 slams. Federer successfully met his goal in 2009 Wimbledon by breaking his record before his 28th birthday. .
Click to expand...

Can you show me where/when he said his goal was to win 15 slams?
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
2009 USO final.
He wouldn't choked those match points he had in 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals either. And likely to win 2011 in the final
Wimbledon 2014 was extremely close and could have gone either way.
There are other slam finals and semifinals that he lost.

The point is tennis is mostly mental, and it's hard to stay highly motivated when you're already broke the record. He would have more chances if the record was 20 instead of 14.
Click to expand...
I see your point but can't agree. I really don't think Fed was lacking motivation in any of those matches. But who knows.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
This is the reason I keep insisting that the new benchmark is what Fed achieved + 3 majors.

Anything in the +1 or +2 over Fed is essentially just getting there with Fed.
 
EloQuent

EloQuent

Legend
Yes of course. If the goal was higher than he would have easily won another 15 slemz. Would not have lost to Rafa, Delpo, or Tim Henman.
does anyone seriously believe this nonsense???
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Mark-Touch said:
Can you show me where/when he said his goal was to win 15 slams?
Click to expand...
Please, do you really think Federer was playing just for fun and not for legacy? Of course he wants to chase Sampras's record, not just the slam but the ranking too.
 
jm1980

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF said:
2009 USO final.
He wouldn't choked those match points he had in 2010 and 2011 USO semifinals either. And likely to win 2011 in the final
Wimbledon 2014 was extremely close and could have gone either way.
There are other slam finals and semifinals that he lost.

The point is tennis is mostly mental, and it's hard to stay highly motivated when you're already broke the record. He would have more chances if the record was 20 instead of 14.
Click to expand...
Who the F knows what would have happened? Maybe with the number 20 in the back of his mind he slips up more, seeing how far his goal is. Maybe he loses more close matches instead of fewer and ends up at 16
 
NoleFam

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
I really don't see where he would have gotten 5 more Slams off of Djokodal. In my opinion Djokodal chasing him is what motivated him more in the 1st place. Also, it's not like just because he hypothetically had more drive that his success in 5 set matches would improve from what it was in his entire career.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
If he had to chase 20 or more, he would stop playing tennis and turn to cheese making.
 
Mark-Touch

Mark-Touch

Legend
TMF said:
Please, do you really think Federer was playing just for fun and not for legacy? Of course he wants to chase Sampras's record, not just the slam but the ranking too.
Click to expand...

No you missed my point.
The OP (you) were trying to say his goal was simply to pass Sampras and stop then at 15.
How the heck did you know that? Are you friends with Fed?

Maybe Fed's goal all along was to hit 20? That's why I was asking for a quote.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
If Djokovic won the French Open, would it lessen his motivation, thus no Slams in future?
Replies
6
Views
698
FudgeControl
F
S
  • Poll
Can Federer get to 20 slams ?
Replies
36
Views
10K
Federer and Del Potro
Federer and Del Potro
M
Would Federer have won more slams if he had a target
Replies
29
Views
1K
helloworld
H
GabeT
  • Poll
Minimum number of slams for Nole so as to not disappoint
2
Replies
65
Views
3K
Rabe87
Rabe87
T
What if Federer won 2009 USO instead of 2009 FO
Replies
7
Views
707
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
Top