"Federer is focusing on the larger picture by skipping clay"

[Dolgopolov85]

but their complete focus on Fed has a bad side-effect of GOAT worship threads which I do find nauseating to a degree, I have to admit. No need to pollute the forum with 20 gloryhunting threads everytime Fed wins a big tourney. They also have a tendency to be way too disrespectful towards different playing styles, especially those more defensive oriented.

Couldn't agree more. Always LOL when Fed fans call the other Big Four guys pushers and especially when they say so of Nadal.

EDIT: And nice match. Delpo/Novak are my second favourites too.

 

[SLD76]

You want us idiots to "get a life", but you're so fascinated by us idiots that now you have no life. Oh how sad.

it's enough for me you admit you're an idiot

 

[eldanger25]

That's the catch. For Fed, whose best surface and slam is grass/Wimby, it's not really 'play RG at the expense of 1+ MS1000.' It's 'play RG, at the expense of 1+ MS1000, and have his chances at Wimby blown to smithereens.' RG is simply too close to Wimby, lacking recovery time from fatigue and/or injury. Case in point, 2016 clay + Wimby.

I'm aware he was newly returned from knee rehab during 2106 clay, but it's reasonable to say that 2016 clay screwed his grass chances royally. Heck, it was curtains for Fed's 2016 after Wimby. Had he been stubborn to play on after 2016 Wimby, his injury might've been worse.

We will agree to disagree. I don't think his chances at Wimbledon would've been "blown to smithereens" had he exchanged 12 matches (in 20 days) on slow HCs in March for 10 or 11 matches (in 20 days) on clay in May/June.

What I am saying is simple: given how competitive he has been at this age still, I wish that, if he is only going to play 50 or 55 matches a season from now on, he'd pencil in 28 of those for the majors, irrespective of surface, and particularly during a season in which he wins the AO. I do not believe RG was or would be a lost cause for him last year or this. This isn't some kind of backdoor critique or conspiracy theory that he is trying to devalue clay - I just want to see the AO winner take a shot at the CYGS each year.

Federer is a delightful player to watch, and the best I've seen live (I was too young for Pancho). But he's just wrong in this instance.

 

[SLD76]

We will agree to disagree. I don't think his chances at Wimbledon would've been "blown to smithereens" had he exchanged 12 matches (in 20 days) on slow HCs in March for 10 or 11 matches (in 20 days) on clay in May/June.

What I am saying is simple: given how competitive he has been at this age still, I wish that, if he is only going to play 50 or 55 matches a season from now on, he'd pencil in 28 of those for the majors, irrespective of surface, and particularly during a season in which he wins the AO. I do not believe RG was or would be a lost cause for him last year or this. This isn't some kind of backdoor critique or conspiracy theory that he is trying to devalue clay - I just want to see the AO winner take a shot at the CYGS each year.

Federer is a delightful player to watch, and the best I've seen live (I was too young for Pancho). But he's just wrong in this instance.

This is what I mean by all these people complaining are just spoiled brats


Fed doesn't owe anyone time on court, not you, not any of these other moronic keyboard critics, not the tour, the ATP or the ITF. He is not


I LOL at all these people who think they know whars best for Fed's body better than fed , his doctors and his physio.


It boggles my mind people whining about him skipping clay to manage his health and his schedule so he can continue to play when most players his age would have been long retired.


ungrateful spoiled brats.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

For what it's worth, during today's match, Robbie Koenig made practically the same argument that the no RG crowd have been making. That as a fan he would love to see Fed play every week of the season. But that as a player, he had to manage his body wisely and he'd rather Fed play for a few more years than stake too much on clay and end up reaching his limits within a few months.

 

[eldanger25]

This is what I mean by all these people complaining are just spoiled brats


Fed doesn't owe anyone time on court, not you, not any of these other moronic keyboard critics, not the tour, the ATP or the ITF. He is not


I LOL at all these people who think they know whars best for Fed's body better than fed , his doctors and his physio.


It boggles my mind people whining about him skipping clay to manage his health and his schedule so he can continue to play when most players his age would have been long retired.


ungrateful spoiled brats.

Take it easy man - every single word ever written on this forum is (or should be) in frivolous fun. Rog was very recently the #1 player in the world, his scheduling choices are by definition newsworthy, particularly when the CYGS is in play.

I look forward to you passionately defending Nadal's scheduling choices during or after his next inevitable injury break. Consistency is important.

 

[SLD76]

Take it easy man - every single word ever written on this forum is (or should be) in frivolous fun. Rog was very recently the #1 player in the world, his scheduling choices are by definition newsworthy, particularly when the CYGS is in play.

I look forward to you passionately defending Nadal's scheduling choices during or after his next inevitable injury break. Consistency is important.

I could give a damn what Nadal skips, he has been skipping events and whole chunks of the year because "injury " his entire career


all players do it, especially ones not old enough or with enough matches to employ the exception


players tank or skip things because "injury" all the time, Fed is just being honest about it



my issue is why people cant fathom why he does it when the man is damn near 40.


people act like life is a damn video game

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I could give a damn what Nadal skips, he has been skipping events and whole chunks of the year because "injury " his entire career


all players do it, especially ones not old enough or with enough matches to employ the exception


players tank or skip things because "injury" all the time, Fed is just being honest about it



my issue is why people cant fathom why he does it when the man is damn near 40.


people act like life is a damn video game

If people want to say he's skipping it because of Nadal, that's also fine by me. It may or may not be valid but one is allowed to hold differing viewpoints and these viewpoints don't HAVE to be dictated only by Fed's official press releases. BUT when people say rules should be changed to block Fed from skipping slams, I have a problem. Even if it's true that people do have a problem with anybody skipping slams, it was never an issue all these years when Nadal just said 'injury' and skipped. Why is it a problem now just because Fed won't lie? Even in 2013, Murray gave an unconvincing back injury pretext to skip RG while later saying it was the physicality of long clay matches that he had wanted to avoid before Wimbledon. Nobody batted an eyelid. And I am not complaining that they didn't. But when it becomes a controversy just because Fed's doing it, the agenda is clear. To spell it out bluntly, "Anything to thwart Fed from arriving in full fitness and form for Wimbledon".

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I could give a damn what Nadal skips, he has been skipping events and whole chunks of the year because "injury " his entire career


all players do it, especially ones not old enough or with enough matches to employ the exception


players tank or skip things because "injury" all the time, Fed is just being honest about it



my issue is why people cant fathom why he does it when the man is damn near 40.


people act like life is a damn video game

Try not to get too worked up over it, them saying that isn't going to make Federer change his mind.

He is considered the greatest for a reason, while none of the experts here on these boards have a single ATP title to their name, let alone a grand slam. If anything, it is funny to see how desperate many were to see him play on clay, just so they could watch him fail, no matter how they try to explain it being for the good of tennis. We will see Federer back on grass, as we all knew before we would.

 

[YellowFedBetter]

Conversely, many of those ripping Fed for skipping clay don't bat an eye when Nadal skips IW/Miami and shows up in tremendous form for the CC season.

I also somehow don't see you start calling Nadal Mayweather as he inevitably trims downs his schedule further into his 30s (as any ATG who lasted that long did).



Remind me, who is #1 again? State of the field is indeed appaling (TBH I don't quite remember it ever being this bad) but "Dorian Gray" isn't the only one taking advantage.

I don’t like Nadal either.

 

[eldanger25]

I could give a damn what Nadal skips, he has been skipping events and whole chunks of the year because "injury " his entire career


all players do it, especially ones not old enough or with enough matches to employ the exception


players tank or skip things because "injury" all the time, Fed is just being honest about it



my issue is why people cant fathom why he does it when the man is damn near 40.


people act like life is a damn video game

Ok - I understand the point you are making, and frankly haven't read most of the posts on this thread- had no idea folks are arguing he should be penalized by the ATP for skipping RG (not my position at all). My point is simple: I'd like to see the AO winner try his hardest to play RG every season if fit to - it is a pleasure to watch our most talented climbers try for Everest or Kilimanjaro.

Fed played nearly 60 matches last year, and entered tournaments in every month but April/May. He was on court enough at other points in the year to question whether he made a mistake skipping RG.

 

[Fedforever]

If anything, it is funny to see how desperate many were to see him play on clay, just so they could watch him fail, no matter how they try to explain it being for the good of tennis

There is something unpleasant about that. I know it's a fine line (if I enjoy Roddick's beatdown in 2007 AO am I guilty of it as well?) but there seems to be an extra edge to it with them.

They seem to enjoy it more than Nadal himself, oddly enough. He looks quite uncomfortable here:

 

[eldanger25]

Try not to get too worked up over it, them saying that isn't going to make Federer change his mind.

He is considered the greatest for a reason, while none of the experts here on these boards have a single ATP title to their name, let alone a grand slam. If anything, it is funny to see how desperate many were to see him play on clay, just so they could watch him fail, no matter how they try to explain it being for the good of tennis. We will see Federer back on grass, as we all knew before we would.

I often enjoy your posts a lot, and want to say three things.

1. I can't imagine anyone wanting the AO winner to play at RG just to fail there.
2. Fed would absolutely have been a contender at RG last year and this year. Even if you believe he could never beat Nadal, recall that Nadal's body gave out on him mid-tournament less than 24 months ago, and Djokovic took his chance thereafter to win his maiden RG (I am not suggesting Nadal would have for sure beaten Djokovic had he carried on in the tournament in 2016, for the record).
3. My position on how players ought to approach an opportunity for the CYGS is more or less reflected in the quote you have chosen for your signature.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I often enjoy your posts a lot, and want to say three things.

1. I can't imagine anyone wanting the AO winner to play at RG just to fail there.
2. Fed would absolutely have been a contender at RG last year and this year. Even if you believe he could never beat Nadal, recall that Nadal's body gave out on him mid-tournament less than 24 months ago, and Djokovic took his chance thereafter to win his maiden RG (I am not suggesting Nadal would have for sure beaten Djokovic had he carried on in the tournament in 2016, for the record).
3. My position on how players ought to approach an opportunity for the CYGS is more or less reflected in the quote you have chosen for your signature.

Firstly, thanks for your kind words.

OK, allow me to reply to all you said

1 - I can imagine plenty who would want Federer to lose at RG, to halt his grand slam momentum, heading into his fav slam. You might not, but plenty here do.
2 - Federer couldn't make it through last season without eventually breaking down, couldn't even play USO fully healthy. Playing more will more than likely have a worse effect on an even older body. He will not want to ruin his chances at grass and hard slams, where his chances of winning are overall greater.
3 - Learning to use mental restrain is about mastery of the mind. To be the perfect champion, the body, spirit AND mind need to be in harmony. Federer is doing that.

 

[eldanger25]

Firstly, thanks for your kind words.

OK, allow me to reply to all you said

1 - I can imagine plenty who would want Federer to lose at RG, to halt his grand slam momentum, heading into his fav slam. You might not, but plenty here do.
2 - Federer couldn't make it through last season without eventually breaking down, couldn't even play USO fully healthy. Playing more will more than likely have a worse effect on an even older body. He will not want to ruin his chances at grass and hard slams, where his chances of winning are overall greater.
3 - Learning to use mental restrain is about mastery of the mind. To be the perfect champion, the body, spirit AND mind need to be in harmony. Federer is doing that.

Your reply on point 3 is fantastic - well-played sir.

I think his problem at the Open was playing two warmup events rather than one - he got a little greedy entering Canada (was still finding that harmony of which you speak). Again, I'd like to see him skip Miami (and potentially IW) in exchange for RG and a little hit and giggle south of Paris the week prior. I'm not arguing he ought to play the clay season - just 1 warmup, 1 major 4x a year, plus maybe Dubai, IW, and Halle/YEC.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Your reply on point 3 is fantastic - well-played sir.

I think his problem at the Open was playing two warmup events rather than one - he got a little greedy entering Canada (was still finding that harmony of which you speak). Again, I'd like to see him skip Miami (and potentially IW) in exchange for RG and a little hit and giggle south of Paris the week prior. I'm not arguing he ought to play the clay season - just 1 warmup, 1 major 4x a year, plus maybe Dubai, IW, and Halle/YEC.

I will say this. Any time he is on a winning streak in slam matches heading into W, he wins the title.

One of the things that benefited Nadal early in his career heading into SW19 was winning RG, the momentum, the feeling of invincibility, the belief that he will not lose, Federer would often be heading in after putting a bruising defeat on clay behind him, more often than not to Nadal, and would need to start the momentum all over again.

Heading into W, he has won the last slam he competed in, so that winning feeling is still there, the feeling of winning BO5. That kind of feel does wonders, when he don't taste defeat. Federer won the only real historic big event he was going to play in before W. He now heads into W, the same way Nadal would, having won his last grand slam.

And while CYGS is great and all, and everyone wants to see it, the most important thing for Federer bar none at this stage is holding onto the slam record at all costs. That is the thing he has worked his all career to attain and that is the thing that Nadal is trying so hard to steal away. Having the winning feeling heading into grass, and not letting Nadal gain any mental edge in their match up is one of the smartest things Federer has ever done. It is sheer tactical brilliance, so good in fact, that Nadal is openly airing his frustration about not getting Federer on clay. It is was of those check mate moves in Chess, you think you have your guy, and then he just pulls out the move that leaves you helpless.

 

[eldanger25]

I will say this. Any time he is on a winning streak in slam matches heading into W, he wins the title.

One of the things that benefited Nadal early in his career heading into SW19 was winning RG, the momentum, the feeling of invincibility, the belief that he will not lose, Federer would often be heading in after putting a bruising defeat on clay behind him, more often than not to Nadal, and would need to start the momentum all over again.

Heading into W, he has won the last slam he competed in, so that winning feeling is still there, the feeling of winning BO5. That kind of feel does wonders, when he don't taste defeat. Federer won the only real historic big event he was going to play in before W. He now heads into W, the same way Nadal would, having won his last grand slam.

And while CYGS is great and all, and everyone wants to see it, the most important thing for Federer bar none at this stage is holding onto the slam record at all costs. That is the thing he has worked his all career to attain and that is the thing that Nadal is trying so hard to steal away. Having the winning feeling heading into grass, and not letting Nadal gain any mental edge in their match up is one of the smartest things Federer has ever done. It is sheer tactical brilliance, so good in fact, that Nadal is openly airing his frustration about not getting Federer on clay. It is was of those check mate moves in Chess, you think you have your guy, and then he just pulls out the move that leaves you helpless.

Lots of valid, interesting points here. Do you think the passage of time dulls that winning feeling at all? It is almost 6 months b/w Melbourne and London.

As I said to zagor the other day, I also just miss watching Fed on red clay. His game, his footwork, everything is really beautiful to watch on the surface - him, Justine, and Guga for me in terms of just pure aesthetic pleasure of watching over the last decade or two. It's a shame they never scheduled Rog in the Bullring since, what, 2003?

I'll also add that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Connors fan. Jimmy would've walked 26.2 miles over broken glass for a shot at the CYGS at 37. So would a lot of other all-time-greats, I think. Not to start a firestorm, but you know Serena would be there.

 

[SLD76]

Lots of valid, interesting points here. Do you think the passage of time dulls that winning feeling at all? It is almost 6 months b/w Melbourne and London.

As I said to zagor the other day, I also just miss watching Fed on red clay. His game, his footwork, everything is really beautiful to watch on the surface - him, Justine, and Guga for me in terms of just pure aesthetic pleasure of watching over the last decade or two. It's a shame they never scheduled Rog in the Bullring since, what, 2003?

I'll also add that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Connors fan. Jimmy would've walked 26.2 miles over broken glass for a shot at the CYGS at 37. So would a lot of other all-time-greats, I think. Not to start a firestorm, but you know Serena would be there.

please


Serena was criticized for years for playing a light schedule compared to other top players , but she always said her goal was longevity and she didnt want to grind herself out playing everything



Turns out she had the last laugh in the end .

 

[mike danny]

They do, they're just being intellectually dishonest. Most of supposed TTW Fedal fans are not even neutral towards Fed, they absolutely can't stand the guy.

Nadal may have caused Fed a lot of pain, but apparently Fed has caused Nadal fans loads of pain.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Nadal may have caused Fed a lot of pain, but apparently Fed has caused Nadal fans loads of pain.

Fed should wear a "Success breads jealousy" t-shirt.

 

[Benben245]

What's with the timing of this article...

Didn't the bulk of of us arrive at these conclusions... like immediately after the announcement? Many of us could have told you these things well before a formal decision was declared.

A: Fed is the only thing tennis has to sell at the moment.

The ill-fated irony is the clay court season is played in Narnia. It is is the least profitable in terms of sponsor revenue and Nielsen rating suggesting in summation it is the least profitable surface in all of tennis. The clay court season, in many respects is the media offseason in terms of tableau. Many of the premier players on tour are struggling and there will be no end in sight to the monotony of the nadal express as it wears down the rest of the field.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Lots of valid, interesting points here. Do you think the passage of time dulls that winning feeling at all? It is almost 6 months b/w Melbourne and London.

No, I don't. The gap betwen USO final and AO final is also about five months long and we know Federer has won that combo many times.

As I said to zagor the other day, I also just miss watching Fed on red clay. His game, his footwork, everything is really beautiful to watch on the surface - him, Justine, and Guga for me in terms of just pure aesthetic pleasure of watching over the last decade or two. It's a shame they never scheduled Rog in the Bullring since, what, 2003?

I am sure many miss Federer on clay, I would like to see play also. But, I also know the difference between what I want and what he needs.

I'll also add that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Connors fan. Jimmy would've walked 26.2 miles over broken glass for a shot at the CYGS at 37. So would a lot of other all-time-greats, I think. Not to start a firestorm, but you know Serena would be there.

Connors didn't have the slam record, back in his day, it wasn't even considered a big thing. They just played each tournament, and arguably there were events that were seemed to seen as bigger than some of the slam events at the time. Totally different world from the one we see now. Connors, along with Serena also do not have another ATG viciously biting at their heels, chasing the slam count, allowing them the luxury to play without looking over their shoulder. You cannot compare this situation with any other since it is unique and never seen before.

 

[mike danny]

If people want to say he's skipping it because of Nadal, that's also fine by me. It may or may not be valid but one is allowed to hold differing viewpoints and these viewpoints don't HAVE to be dictated only by Fed's official press releases. BUT when people say rules should be changed to block Fed from skipping slams, I have a problem. Even if it's true that people do have a problem with anybody skipping slams, it was never an issue all these years when Nadal just said 'injury' and skipped. Why is it a problem now just because Fed won't lie? Even in 2013, Murray gave an unconvincing back injury pretext to skip RG while later saying it was the physicality of long clay matches that he had wanted to avoid before Wimbledon. Nobody batted an eyelid. And I am not complaining that they didn't. But when it becomes a controversy just because Fed's doing it, the agenda is clear. To spell it out bluntly, "Anything to thwart Fed from arriving in full fitness and form for Wimbledon".

The thing is, if Fed wasn't winning slams, no one would care about him skipping the clay court season. Not even the Nadal fans.

But since Fed has been winning slams with regularity lately and has won more than Nadal, of course the Nadal fans feel threatened by the man and realize that Fed again might put the slam record out of reach for Nadal.

 

[Steve0904]

Oh I don't doubt it. In general though, fandom declarations or I'm very objective declarations and such I pay very little heed to.

TTW always had more than it's fair share of BSitters, your posts will tell everything on their own, no need to declare anything.

True. I think the only time I ever said I was a fan of Federer to start my post it was my very first post here.

Oh yeah, almost always without mistake, lol. It has gotten to ridiculous levels but nothing you can do except occasionally call them on their nonsense. There are even longtime Nadal fans running around with a Fed "fan" accounts now (like Rusty).

There's one Fedal fan that prefered Fed (atleast that's the impression I got) but I haven't seen her post in quite a while. Very friendly and open to conversation though, nothing like your usual "Fedal" fan.

Yeah, he's been obvious for a few months at least, and I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same Fedal fan. Like you say, unfortunately she hasn't posted in a while.

My post was just a general observation though. I don't see as many Federer fans pulling the old "I'm a fan of both" schtick.

 

[Steve0904]

If people want to say he's skipping it because of Nadal, that's also fine by me. It may or may not be valid but one is allowed to hold differing viewpoints and these viewpoints don't HAVE to be dictated only by Fed's official press releases. BUT when people say rules should be changed to block Fed from skipping slams, I have a problem. Even if it's true that people do have a problem with anybody skipping slams, it was never an issue all these years when Nadal just said 'injury' and skipped. Why is it a problem now just because Fed won't lie? Even in 2013, Murray gave an unconvincing back injury pretext to skip RG while later saying it was the physicality of long clay matches that he had wanted to avoid before Wimbledon. Nobody batted an eyelid. And I am not complaining that they didn't. But when it becomes a controversy just because Fed's doing it, the agenda is clear. To spell it out bluntly, "Anything to thwart Fed from arriving in full fitness and form for Wimbledon".

This post is so good it deserves to be quoted again. Should be pinned in big bold font too.

 

[eldanger25]

No, I don't. The gap betwen USO final and AO final is also about five months long and we know Federer has won that combo many times.

Fair point. If I got into the psychological effect of a between-season versus mid-season gap that long, I think I'd be veering us into the weeds a little, so I'll leave it there.

Connors didn't have the slam record, back in his day, it wasn't even considered a big thing. They just played each tournament, and arguably there were events that were seemed to seen as bigger than some of the slam events at the time. Totally different world from the one we see now. Connors, along with Serena also do not have another ATG viciously biting at their heels, chasing the slam count, allowing them the luxury to play without looking over their shoulder. You cannot compare this situation with any other since it is unique and never seen before.

It feels a little bit contradictory to me to say that one is protecting the slam record by ceding an extra slam to his rival. After 2009, 2012, and especially 2014, who'd have thought Rog was winning AO 2017 against Nadal, and yet he did. I do not assume that Nadal would always and forever beat Federer in Paris, particularly after painfully losing his first GS final to Federer in a decade just a few months prior. We know Nadal has had plenty of fifth set choke-jobs the last half-decade - his reputation as peerlessly clutch at the majors has demonstrably dipped.

I like and appreciate that you are attuned to the psychological components of these decisions and the rivalry, even if we take different views of them - couldn't agree more that the mind-games never went away with those two.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Fair point. If I got into the psychological effect of a between-season versus mid-season gap that long, I think I'd be veering us into the weeds a little, so I'll leave it there.



It feels a little bit contradictory to me to say that one is protecting the slam record by ceding an extra slam to his rival. After 2009, 2012, and especially 2014, who'd have thought Rog was winning AO 2017 against Nadal, and yet he did. I do not assume that Nadal would always and forever beat Federer in Paris, particularly after painfully losing his first GS final to Federer in a decade just a few months prior. We know Nadal has had plenty of fifth set choke-jobs the last half-decade - his reputation as peerlessly clutch at the majors has demonstrably dipped.

I like and appreciate that you are attuned to the psychological components of these decisions and the rivalry, even if we take different views of them - couldn't agree more that the mind-games never went away with those two.

It's about picking your battles wisely to win the war. You cannot go in like Rambo, and tear everyone apart. Sometimes you need to take the hits to see the bigger picture.

Here is how I see Federer thinking...

How can I stop Nadal from taking my slam record? Well, I keep playing to MY strengths, the way he has been playing to his, IF I keep coming in peak physical and mental form into my fav slams, like he has done with his in the past, then I will cancel out every one of his slam wins with a win of my own. I will keep doing this until I cannot do it any longer or he finally falters. Not only will that allow me to keep the slam record away from Nadal, but it will make so far out of reach for anyone else who comes after I am gone, that to break it will require something of the likes never seen before. I don't need to beat Nadal at RG, I need to keep him away from my record, and the best way I will is doing what I did last year. I will cancel out his RG win by winning W, and with each passing year, it will get harder and harder. If he not going to stop, then neither am I.

 

[eldanger25]

It's about picking your battles wisely to win the war. You cannot go in like Rambo, and tear everyone apart. Sometimes you need to take the hits to see the bigger picture.

Here is how I see Federer thinking...

How can I stop Nadal from taking my slam record? Well, I keep playing to MY strengths, the way he has been playing to his, IF I keep coming in peak physical and mental form into my fav slams, like he has done with his in the past, then I will cancel out every one of his slam wins with a win of my own. I will keep doing this until I cannot do it any longer or he finally falters. Not only will that allow me to keep the slam record away from Nadal, but it will make so far out of reach for anyone else who comes after I am gone, that to break it will require something of the likes never seen before. I don't need to beat Nadal at RG, I need to keep him away from my record, and the best way I will is doing what I did last year. I will cancel out his RG win by winning W, and with each passing year, it will get harder and harder. If he not going to stop, then neither am I.

Ok - I see that. So following that line of thought, if Nadal repeats at RG/USO this year, Fed fails to defend his Wimbledon title this year (not to Nadal - let's say to Kyrgios), and Nadal finally gets over the line for his second title in Australia in 2019, do you think we'll see Federer in Paris next year trying to deny Nadal a joint share of the record? Or would that tip his hand too much that these withdrawals in 2017-18 were totally strategic, and further embolden Nadal, such that Fed skips it again?

 

[Fedforever]

I do not assume that Nadal would always and forever beat Federer in Paris, particularly after painfully losing his first GS final to Federer in a decade just a few months prior.

But would he get to the Final though?

 

[Steve0904]

Ok - I understand the point you are making, and frankly haven't read most of the posts on this thread- had no idea folks are arguing he should be penalized by the ATP for skipping RG (not my position at all). My point is simple: I'd like to see the AO winner try his hardest to play RG every season if fit to - it is a pleasure to watch our most talented climbers try for Everest or Kilimanjaro.

Fed played nearly 60 matches last year, and entered tournaments in every month but April/May. He was on court enough at other points in the year to question whether he made a mistake skipping RG.

Don't think the bold is necessarily true. He looked tired at the WTF last year without playing RG (and even injured himself before USO, although I have no idea how fluky that may have been), so he may have burned out by Wimbledon had he played RG. Either way I don't see how playing RG would've helped him.

Which is essentially what most people are saying about the whole issue of Fed playing on clay as it is.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Ok - I see that. So following that line of thought, if Nadal repeats at RG/USO this year, Fed fails to defend his Wimbledon title this year (not to Nadal - let's say to Kyrgios), and Nadal finally gets over the line for his second title in Australia in 2019, do you think we'll see Federer in Paris next year trying to deny Nadal a joint share of the record? Or would that tip his hand too much that these withdrawals in 2017-18 were totally strategic, and further embolden Nadal, such that Fed skips it again?

I personally think he will skip again and head into W. Going to RG next year if your above scenario plays out will immediately send message to Nadal, that he's got Federer now and could finish him off on the clay for good, get the mental edge back finally and then take the slam record. I doubt Federer will change his strategy, he will refocus on getting the record back at W.

 

[eldanger25]

I personally think he will skip again and head into W. Going to RG next year if your above scenario plays out will immediately send message to Nadal, that he's got Federer now and could finish him off on the clay for good, get the mental edge back finally and then take the slam record. I doubt Federer will change his strategy, he will refocus on getting the record back at W.

I think you're right.

Personally, I'm at the point where half of me want to see 'em both keep going (it's a special thing to bear witness to overall and individual slam records like these two keep reeling off), and the other half wants to see Shapo, Kyrgios, Tiafoe etc. spend the next few slams treating Fedal like Safin treated Sampras at the 2000 Open final. The kids need to make all these old men walk the plank.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I'll also add that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Connors fan. Jimmy would've walked 26.2 miles over broken glass for a shot at the CYGS at 37. So would a lot of other all-time-greats, I think. Not to start a firestorm, but you know Serena would be there.

I could debate this but I would rather ask a different question: how do we know anyway in April/May whether Fed has a shot at the CYGS? We're assuming that he is gonna win Wimbledon AND US Open for sure but he couldn't do that last year and hasn't won a USO after the 08 title. As such, his US Open series performance last year was nothing to write home about. No, this is simply about maximising chances of winning another Wimbledon. Which itself we shouldn't take for granted. That many of us do is simply a mark of Fed's greatness but it doesn't mean things can't go wrong this year at Wimbledon either. Fed had but one shot at the CYGS in 2004 when he managed to lose to an injured Kuerten. Since then, he has never had a legit shot at a CYGS. He did have a shot at a NCYGS in 2009-10 which he blew by losing to Delpo in 5. It's a long shot that he gets it and I don't think it's happening anymore. I can live with that if it means Laver was the last player to win a CYGS. Now if Fed wins Wimbledon, USO and AO back to back from now to 2019...then, yes, I would say a bid for a NCYGS is on even if I don't see it coming true.

 

[eldanger25]

But would he get to the Final though?

I'd favor him against just about anybody bar Nadal in Paris, last year or this year.

 

[Slightly D1]

What comes after FO? Grass ...Wimbledon. Federers favourite. It is a ridiculous back and forth swing for folks to switch from hardcourt to clay and then back to grass. Anyone who played multiple surfaces totally know that Clay is a totally different sport as it is. So by skipping Clay, Federer puts himself at an advantage, ahead of the competition for Grass, just by avoiding the "style swinging" which his competion is (kind of) forced to do.

Yeah it’s pretty lame and unfair.

 

[eldanger25]

I could debate this but I would rather ask a different question: how do we know anyway in April/May whether Fed has a shot at the CYGS? We're assuming that he is gonna win Wimbledon AND US Open for sure but he couldn't do that last year and hasn't won a USO after the 08 title. As such, his US Open series performance last year was nothing to write home about. No, this is simply about maximising chances of winning another Wimbledon. Which itself we shouldn't take for granted. That many of us do is simply a mark of Fed's greatness but it doesn't mean things can't go wrong this year at Wimbledon either. Fed had but one shot at the CYGS in 2004 when he managed to lose to an injured Kuerten. Since then, he has never had a legit shot at a CYGS. He did have a shot at a NCYGS in 2009-10 which he blew by losing to Delpo in 5. It's a long shot that he gets it and I don't think it's happening anymore. I can live with that if it means Laver was the last player to win a CYGS. Now if Fed wins Wimbledon, USO and AO back to back from now to 2019...then, yes, I would say a bid for a NCYGS is on even if I don't see it coming true.

We don't know if he does have a shot, but we do know that skipping RG means he doesn't have a shot. I understand your viewpoint - Fed is right to schedule his season in a way that prioritizes 3 slams (one in particular) rather than all four. I'd like to see him prioritize all four w/r/t his scheduling, at least during seasons in which he wins the AO.

How exciting would it be to hear him just own it after his post-match press conference with the AO trophy resting next to him? "I'm heading to Paris this year, folks - I'm after the biggest trophy of 'em all." Would put Connors's "Get me Laver!" and "I'll chase that sunovabitch to the ends of the earth" press conferences to shame. Not to mention get the entire sporting world's attention.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

We don't know if he does have a shot, but we do know that skipping RG means he doesn't have a shot. I understand your viewpoint - Fed is right to schedule his season in a way that prioritizes 3 slams (one in particular) rather than all four. I'd like to see him prioritize all four w/r/t his scheduling, at least during seasons in which he wins the AO.

How exciting would it be to hear him just own it after his post-match press conference with the AO trophy resting next to him? "I'm heading to Paris this year, folks - I'm after the biggest trophy of 'em all." Would put Connors's "Get me Laver!" and "I'll chase that sunovabitch to the ends of the earth" press conferences to shame. Not to mention get the entire sporting world's attention.

Well, it would be nice but - and I know you're a Connors fan - the fact is Connors got beaten again and again at Wimbledon by Borg. Maybe in today's times he would get trolled for not living up to his trash talking. Connors didn't even get a shot at tackling Borg at RG where he was even more formidable. He did stave him off at USO (which McEnroe did too) and while that is commendable, it sounds like Connors spinning off winning odds into some grand mission of stopping Borg from the CYGS when all he was doing was holding onto the one slam that Borg let him win.

We're talking about Fed locking horns with Nadal at RG. I still don't see how the developments of last year would upend the rivalry's patterns on clay. Just at MC, Nadal gets way more bounce than any hard court for his groundies...on both wings. It will be even more brutal at RG. Had the AO not been a somewhat low bouncing court, even the famed neo backhand of Fed wouldn't work quite so well. It's not like Fed lost to Nadal back in 09 only due to mental issues. He also lost to a younger and therefore physically stronger player at his peak and one against whom he didn't have any answers. So the way I look at it is the beautiful CYGS dream when squared up against the effort needed on clay and the stiff odds to be overcome to beat Nadal there doesn't really seem worth it.

 

[eldanger25]

Well, it would be nice but - and I know you're a Connors fan - the fact is Connors got beaten again and again at Wimbledon by Borg. Maybe in today's times he would get trolled for not living up to his trash talking. Connors didn't even get a shot at tackling Borg at RG where he was even more formidable. He did stave him off at USO (which McEnroe did too) and while that is commendable, it sounds like Connors spinning off winning odds into some grand mission of stopping Borg from the CYGS when all he was doing was holding onto the one slam that Borg let him win.

We're talking about Fed locking horns with Nadal at RG. I still don't see how the developments of last year would upend the rivalry's patterns on clay. Just at MC, Nadal gets way more bounce than any hard court for his groundies...on both wings. It will be even more brutal at RG. Had the AO not been a somewhat low bouncing court, even the famed neo backhand of Fed wouldn't work quite so well. It's not like Fed lost to Nadal back in 09 only due to mental issues. He also lost to a younger and therefore physically stronger player at his peak and one against whom he didn't have any answers. So the way I look at it is the beautiful CYGS dream when squared up against the effort needed on clay and the stiff odds to be overcome to beat Nadal there doesn't really seem worth it.

Borg-Connors is a topic unto itself. Borg skipping town at 25 has led lots of folks to believe he'd be Borg 1979 forever and ever, including in analyzing that rivalry. Connors pushed him around across 1982, and although he wasn't a week-in, week-out player by then, those matches meant a hell of a lot, as he was trying to demonstrate his star power independent of the organizing bodies to force them to let him be a part-time player and skip the grind.

To Federer's eternal credit, he did a better impression of Borg in his 20s than Borg did, and is in the midst of a better impression of Connors and the old Australians in his 30s than any of them.

 

[oldmanfan]

Try not to get too worked up over it, them saying that isn't going to make Federer change his mind.

He is considered the greatest for a reason, while none of the experts here on these boards have a single ATP title to their name, let alone a grand slam. If anything, it is funny to see how desperate many were to see him play on clay, just so they could watch him fail, no matter how they try to explain it being for the good of tennis. We will see Federer back on grass, as we all knew before we would.

Right? Here's a fun fact that these same people either does not know, does not acknowledge or plainly dismissed:

Fed: turned pro in 1998, played, NONSTOP, all of each season, until Wimby 2016 (that's 18 years, no breaks)

Nadal: turned pro in 2001, played, WITH STOPS, until now (17 years, with many breaks in between).

Djokovic: turned pro in 2003.

Murray: turned pro in 2005.

Djokovic and Murray played even less than Nadal, bc they won less.

Yet Fed's the one ducking? I thought he was a goat?

Let the other 3 do what Fed has done (it's too late, they can't), then we can compare. Right now, it's apples and oranges. The bus has sailed for the other 3, so it will always be apples and oranges.

 

[augustobt]

Could you imagine if Nadal or Djokovic skipped so many tournaments ??

Like Nadal Skipped Acapulco, IW and Miami but was playing perfectly fine on the Davis Cup, a week after Key Biscane? Sure!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Like Nadal Skipped Acapulco, IW and Miami but was playing perfectly fine on the Davis Cup, a week after Key Biscane? Sure!

A goldfish has nothing on the vamosalaplayans in the memory department!

Ouch

 

[Sentinel]

There are even longtime Nadal fans running around with a Fed "fan" accounts now (like Rusty).

I know of smoledman LOL, but which one is Rusty ?