Federer News

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
As of right now, Nadal has 8,000 Wimbledon points, and Federer has 7,980. If Nadal wins tomorrow, he’ll have 8,800. If Fed wins Halle, he’d have 8,980 (500 ATP points, plus 500 bonus grass points).
Are you sure? You're saying that even if Rafa wins RG, if Roger wins Halle, he'll be #2 seed? This is not what I have read elsewhere, but don't know enough about rankings to voice an opinion. Roger will also be dropping 150 points from Stuttgart 2018.
 
Are you sure? You're saying that even if Rafa wins RG, if Roger wins Halle, he'll be #2 seed? This is not what I have read elsewhere, but don't know enough about rankings to voice an opinion. Roger will also be dropping 150 points from Stuttgart 2018.
He only drops 25% of those points, and he won so it was 250 points minus the 25%. So essentially still counts as 187 points.
 
Are you sure? You're saying that even if Rafa wins RG, if Roger wins Halle, he'll be #2 seed? This is not what I have read elsewhere, but don't know enough about rankings to voice an opinion. Roger will also be dropping 150 points from Stuttgart 2018.
There’s another thread on this with more detail, but pretty sure that’s how it works. Were Rafa to say play Queens and reach the quarters, that would guarantee him at worst a tie - I don’t know what the tiebreaker would be. Semis or better would lock it up for him.
 
Saw the info elsewhere. Not smart enough to work it out myself, but if that’s the case then my mistake
ATP points (6,120 after taking out last years Stuttgart and Halle), plus
Last 12 month grass points (right now that’s just 360 for 2018 Wimbledon), plus
75% of best prior 12 month grass event (Wimbledon 2017 win, so 1,500)

So current total is 7,980. Winning Halle nets 1,000 - 500 ATP and another 500 in the last 12 grass bucket.
 
There is no reason to be glum or disappointed. Roger came into the FO with no expectations. I didn't even expect him to make it past the 4th round - but he made it all the way to the SF and it took the undisputed King of Clay to stop him.

The man is almost 38 years old, hasn't played clay in years AND MADE IT TO THE SEMI-FINALS OF THE CLAY GRAND SLAM!

Federer is amazing.

Well Done Maestro, Well Done.
Abso-f'n-lutely!!! (y)
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
I guess it doesn't really matter, he might not see Djoker, and if he does he will see him in the semi or final either way.
As a Fed fan, it does matter immensely. A #2 seed means he does not have to go through (potentially) both Nadal and Djokovic. If he's #2 seed, he will only have to face Djoker in the final. Not Djoker in the semis and potentially Rafa in the final. It's huge.
 
As a Fed fan, it does matter immensely. A #2 seed means he does not have to go through (potentially) both Nadal and Djokovic. If he's #2 seed, he will only have to face Djoker in the final. Not Djoker in the semis and potentially Rafa in the final. It's huge.
Maybe, or maybe he only faces Nadal. I am not scared of Nadal on grass... until it happens :). But there is not much to do about it since he is not playing Stuttgart. Just win Halle and hope Nadal doesn't play a grass tourney just to grab 2 seed.
 
Subtracting rest of the year points:
5505 Nadl
4815 Djkr
3360 Fedr

Thiem/Zverev (poor form notwithstanding)/Tsitsipas are all around the 2000-2500 mark. As much as I want Fedr to equal Pistol Pete's 6 yr end 1s, I'd prefer one of these kids (Thiem is 26 but still) to make a big run towards breaking a 15 year stronghold.
 
I was thinking about the possibility of both Nadal and Djokovic finishing with more major championships than Federer. I don't know what the probability is, but it certainly isn't impossible. Anyway, it occurred to me that at 37, Federer is almost from a previous era than Nadal (33) and Djokovic (32). The younger generations almost always tend to surpass the older generations.

The whole thing seems weird to me anyway, that these three guys have more majors than anyone else in history. I used to think it's because they've slowed down the courts and made the surfaces more similar, but Nadal clearly makes the most out of the clay. Something's going on. I know when I was watching tennis in the 80s, a lot of players didn't even play the Australian.
 
I was thinking about the possibility of both Nadal and Djokovic finishing with more major championships than Federer. I don't know what the probability is, but it certainly isn't impossible. Anyway, it occurred to me that at 37, Federer is almost from a previous era than Nadal (33) and Djokovic (32). The younger generations almost always tend to surpass the older generations.

The whole thing seems weird to me anyway, that these three guys have more majors than anyone else in history. I used to think it's because they've slowed down the courts and made the surfaces more similar, but Nadal clearly makes the most out of the clay. Something's going on. I know when I was watching tennis in the 80s, a lot of players didn't even play the Australian.
Hmmm, I could be wrong, but that sounds like a suggestion of something. Words like "somethings going on" and "seems weird" is usually a suggestion that someone is doping. Am I detecting this correctly or am I just off?
 
You want me to elaborate on 59% first serve in, 48% net points won and 34 UE error for the match? Self explanatory.

So if it’s windy in London, we can expect a similar result. Is that what you are saying?
Roger was basically nerfed by the wind (moreso than Nadal) where he needed perfect execution to even have a chance. This wouldn't be as detrimental on grass.
 
Roger was basically nerfed by the wind (moreso than Nadal) where he needed perfect execution to even have a chance. This wouldn't be as detrimental on grass.
Going forward, I'm actually very optimistic about Fedr seeing his form throughout RG, bc even in winds that 'forces' him to play super safe (2nd serve speed was down by about 20mph, in the 70's at one point). That's WTA speed. That kind of nerfing on his serve and groundies, yet he broke Nadl 2x. That could easily be 2 sets to Fedr on hc/grass. He may even break Nadl more in normal conditions on hc/grass if he can do that in those conditions, and on slow RG clay. Even Nadl complimented Fedr's groundies, especially his BH, and he thought that Fedr can win WB with that level.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
I was thinking about the possibility of both Nadal and Djokovic finishing with more major championships than Federer. I don't know what the probability is, but it certainly isn't impossible. Anyway, it occurred to me that at 37, Federer is almost from a previous era than Nadal (33) and Djokovic (32). The younger generations almost always tend to surpass the older generations.

The whole thing seems weird to me anyway, that these three guys have more majors than anyone else in history. I used to think it's because they've slowed down the courts and made the surfaces more similar, but Nadal clearly makes the most out of the clay. Something's going on. I know when I was watching tennis in the 80s, a lot of players didn't even play the Australian.
It's called the weakest era in history.
 
Roger was basically nerfed by the wind (moreso than Nadal) where he needed perfect execution to even have a chance. This wouldn't be as detrimental on grass.
Bogus statement there. If all things were same (big winds, no roof in Wimbledon and the same form Fed was in FO SF) , Fed would be playing the same way against Nadal. It was that crappy. There is no one better who exposes how bad your gameplay is than Nadal.
 
Bogus statement there. If all things were same (big winds, no roof in Wimbledon and the same form Fed was in FO SF) , Fed would be playing the same way against Nadal. It was that crappy.
That's the wrong tree. Fed's execution at WB wouldn't have to be as good to stand a chance. Of course he could still lose, but I'd give him better odds all other things being equal, including form.
 
So you just decide to think that chances are much better at Wimbledon if Fed is in bad form? So no regard to the fact that he will be playing someone in good form at the SF. Fed couldn't get past the QF last year when his game was slightly off. Such a short memory.
I simply think put Roger of the FO SF in a WB SF and chances are he performs better there, in the same 'conditions'. My memory is fine.
 
I simply think put Roger of the FO SF in a WB SF and chances are he performs better there, in the same 'conditions'. My memory is fine.
You are just hung up on the "chances will be better" and totally disregarding the way Fed played which had nothing to do with the conditions. Again, you just say your memory is fine but dont want to discuss how Fed lost in QF last year.

I dont see the point of this discussion.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
You are just hung up on the "chances will be better" and totally disregarding the way Fed played which had nothing to do with the conditions. Again, you just say your memory is fine but dont want to discuss how Fed lost in QF last year.

I dont see the point of this discussion.
Why is there dissension in this thread? This Forum is supposed to be positive and about Roger, not getting into conflicts with others. Take it to the other sub-forums please.
 
Why is there dissension in this thread? This Forum is supposed to be positive and about Roger, not getting into conflicts with others. Take it to the other sub-forums please.
So discussing a topic about how Fed gameplay was bad is now dissension??? I am not the one who started coming up with "excuses". Please refrain from re-directing arguments.

I agree people should stay away from empty arguments not based on facts.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
So discussing a topic about how Fed gameplay was bad is now dissension??? I am not the one who started coming up with "excuses". Please refrain from re-directing arguments.

I agree people should stay away from empty arguments not based on facts.
Not sure why you're so angry at Federer, all of the posters here and possibly those kids that keep playing on your lawn but I'm sure you're a barrel of laughs in the real world.:oops:
 
Top