Federers final tally

spam

Rookie
When all is said and done ,barring career ending injury,how will Federer stand history-wise?He's already outstripped his peers as regards Slams won and with I think the only other active men with as many- Agassi arguably on the verge of retirement and Guga seemingly out of the equation due to recurrent injury,how many slams do you think he will win by the end of his career?Hewitt has two but Ifear he has had his day just like Courier and Chang- once players unlock their game its over .Others are ,with the possible exception of Safin,one -slam wonders most likely.Defending Wimbledon and beating players he previously struggled against showed me that he has the game and the hunger to push for GOAT status.
 
Talent-wise is probably already GOAT. But, now its time to tally slams and it will be difficult to beat 14. He'll have to stay healthy and beat off new challengers.
 

spam

Rookie
If he can get say 10 ,win on all surfaces and importantly establish a strong rivalry(Roddick,Nadal???) then I think a v strong case can be made.
 
i don't see to many weaknesses in his game, like with roddick, he has stuff to work on and get better. I think a 150+ serve is god given.
 

baseliner

Professional
Too many variables to say for certain (health, desire, weather, draws, upcoming talent), but I'd be willing to bet he'll retire with less than 14. 5-8 would be my guess and certainly entitle him to enshrinement in the hall of fame.
 

Chanchai

Semi-Pro
Hey, you never know.... some psycho Agassi fan could come charging Federer during a tournament and stab him and ruin his game for a good while. But that would be way too ironic for life, right?

There's always the unforeseeable, but Roger is so darn likeable. And if not likeable, he's just so darn un-hateable.

Anyways... hmm.... predictions are tough... that's why they're called predictions :) (so many variations of one joke...). He has 3 now... dang... I guess I'm predicting 8 more so that's 11 grand slams. If I were in a doritos commercial, I'd say he'll get 18 grand slams in his career, which would be averaging 3 per year for 5 years (which is nuts). But that would be daring... That's why they call it daring.

:)
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
This game is pointless(but fun). Historically it has been extremely rare for a player to dominate the game for more than 4 years. In the Open Era,the only players to win at least one slam per year more than 4 years in row are Borg & Sampras(they both had 8 consecutive years!) I also believe that the players they contended against were of a higher level than Fed's rivals of today(both in ability & accomplishments)
Given that a player is usually past his peak at 25-26, I think Fed could be in the 6-8 slam range. Who knows how good the next generation of players will be(esp. Nadal)? It's nice to see that Roddick is committed to getting the best out of his abilities, I wish that Ferrero, Moya, Coria & Haas(I know he's a bit older & has had injuries, but think he can regain his form of '02 enough to be a possible challenger for Fed) had his work ethic & desire.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
If he continues to play with the PS 85, I believe he could reach double digits in career slams.
 
Although their games are different, the way Federer carries himself reminds me a lot of Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras. Borg had slightly more raw talent and Sampras had tremendous desire. Federer has a more well-rounded game than both of them. I think for Federer it will come down to staying hungry for the slams. As long as he wants it it'll be there for the taking.
 

PJVA

Rookie
I might be naive, but I think a lot of winning slams depends on the luck of the draw. For example if either Roddick or Federer end up with Agassi, Henman, Hewitt, and Safin all in their quarter or their half then that would put a lot of strain on them to work hard to get through to the final.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
PJVA said:
I might be naive, but I think a lot of winning slams depends on the luck of the draw. For example if either Roddick or Federer end up with Agassi, Henman, Hewitt, and Safin all in their quarter or their half then that would put a lot of strain on them to work hard to get through to the final.
You're not being naive. The toughest draws are when a player is drawn to face opponents they don't match-up well against.
Higher seeds are not inherently more difficult to beat for every player. Safin would fancy his chances against Roddick, Grosjean and Schuettler far more than the lower ranked Santoro.


Anyone who wins a slam without having to face an opponent who has a winning record against them is lucky.
 

sliceroni

Hall of Fame
My analysis. I figure think he'll win 2 slams a year for the next few years finishing with 10-11, and with a French Open win he'll surpass Pete as GOAT. Even dirt ballers fear him on dirt!
 

PJVA

Rookie
AAAA said:
You're not being naive. The toughest draws are when a player is drawn to face opponents they don't match-up well against.
Higher seeds are not inherently more difficult to beat for every player. Safin would fancy his chances against Roddick, Grosjean and Schuettler far more than the lower ranked Santoro.


Anyone who wins a slam without having to face an opponent who has a winning record against them is lucky.
That's what I thought AAAA. It seems like a lot of people don't take this into consideration. In the past Roddick has been twarted by Safin or Agassi. Federer has been twarted by Nalbandian, but now he handles him well. Still for either Roddick or Federer to have several of their tough match ups in a row would take a toll.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
i agree w. irishbanger who sez fed is already GOAT from an ability point of view. who knows how many slams he will win..it depends on so many things, many of which arent really in feds control. asfar as him having players he just cant match up with, i think he has already gotten past that (nalbandian) and another. if you break the game down into forehand, backhand, movement, mental, playing smarts, serve, etc, you can pick fed as the best out there at each..including the serve which i think is ever bit as good (effective) as roddicks...i dont think there has ever been anyone come along quite like fed and i've seen laver live in his prime, borg, sampras, etc. my GOAT list in order would be fed, samps, the rocket, then borg. after that, i think there is a gap and then you can put in players like agassi, lendl, rosewall, connors, mcenroe, etc. my .02. ed
 

AndyC

Semi-Pro
I think u're selling Mac a little short.. yes we can look back now and judge his career.. but back between 1981 and 1984 he certainly looked like he had the talent of a GOAT. There are a lot of similarities between Mac in 1984 when he went 79-3 and Federer's year so far insofar as the lack of really top class challengers. Borg had gone, Conners was the wrong side of 30, Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander had yet to arrive. The game's evolution caught up with him though.. n of course he took a sabbatical from tennis during that period when the game was changing.. and by the time he came back.. talent or not the game had passed him by.

How well Federer does ultimately will depend on his motivation and his luck (to stay injury free). I like to think he can dominate the game as Sampras did but we shall see. As I've said before to be considered GOAT he'll have to win 10+ GS titles on all 4 surfaces and defend a few of them. Actually thinking about it.. if he goes on to win 2 of each GS title by successfully defending them for a total of 8 and retires I might still give it to him.
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
Here's what Pete says about Federer "He’s clearly the best player in the world, I think. It becomes a question of how much he’s willing to sacrifice to win those majors. You know, you get to a point where it’s about different levels—winning majors, defending majors, then being really great, it being your life. "
 

spam

Rookie
Good points ed I think I agree with your list but at the moment Pete would still be number onein my book.Dont forget Sampras had very elegant strokes at the beginning of his career which evolved into what he percieved to be a more efficient way of playing.His serve got better,volleyed more ,started bludgeoning the forehand and basically stripped his game down ready for the long-haul.When all is said and doneI think people will judge Fed on how many slams he wins and/ or if he wins the French as Id wager he'll win the US at least once in his career.
 

Chanchai

Semi-Pro
How much did Sampras' one-handed backhand change over his career? I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT going 2h to 1h (if I don't say it here, I'm sure somebody is going to post about that...).

In a TennisOne article, Lansdorp complains that Sampras changed to a weaker (implying worse) backhand later in his career. I don't know how good his first US Open win one-hander was (the one that Lansdorp uses as a model), but I do know that Pete's one-hander at the end of his career didn't make that much impact on me EXCEPT for that it was great at setting up those points at the net among other things. Basically, dominant by construction (and execution), not dominant as a sole-weapon.

-Chanchai
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
This game is pointless(but fun). Historically it has been extremely rare for a player to dominate the game for more than 4 years. In the Open Era,the only players to win at least one slam per year more than 4 years in row are Borg & Sampras(they both had 8 consecutive years!) I also believe that the players they contended against were of a higher level than Fed's rivals of today(both in ability & accomplishments)
Given that a player is usually past his peak at 25-26, I think Fed could be in the 6-8 slam range. Who knows how good the next generation of players will be(esp. Nadal)? It's nice to see that Roddick is committed to getting the best out of his abilities, I wish that Ferrero, Moya, Coria & Haas(I know he's a bit older & has had injuries, but think he can regain his form of '02 enough to be a possible challenger for Fed) had his work ethic & desire.
It is amusing to read some of these predictions about Fed from 12 years ago!
 

edmondsm

Legend
Funny. Imagine if you came in this thread and not only said Fed would catch Sampras but also there is this skinny little 17 year old dirtballer named Nadal that's going to catch Sampras too. You would have been laughed out of the room.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Funny. Imagine if you came in this thread and not only said Fed would catch Sampras but also there is this skinny little 17 year old dirtballer named Nadal that's going to catch Sampras too. You would have been laughed out of the room.
Thriving in the weakest era in sporting history of course.

Props to Federer and Nadal - one of them is not very talented yet such a hard worker and has managed to catch Sampras and even surpass him in the Slam tally.

Lol - can't even keep a straight face as I type that
 
Last edited:

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.

edmondsm

Legend
Thriving in the weakest era in sporting history of course.

Props to Federer and Nadal - one of them is not very talented yet such a hard worker and has managed to catch Sampras and even surpass him in the Slam tally.
C'mon man, you know there is no quantifiable way to say that era was weak. To the contrary, most retired top pros who know much more than you or me say that pro tennis is harder than ever. It is rough to see a hero like Sampras get overtaken when we all thought his record would stand for decades if not forever. That's life though. Don't just make stuff up to support your fantasy. Give me a break, weakest era ever??? Roy Emerson gets to have his name on the all time slam list and he didn't have to beat a single pro to get there.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
C'mon man, you know there is no quantifiable way to say that era was weak. To the contrary, most retired top pros who know much more than you or me say that pro tennis is harder than ever. It is rough to see a hero like Sampras get overtaken when we all thought his record would stand for decades if not forever. That's life though. Don't just make stuff up to support your fantasy. Give me a break, weakest era ever??? Roy Emerson gets to have his name on the all time slam list and he didn't have to beat a single pro to get there.
Absolutely the weakest era ever - not just in tennis, but across all sports. Fedal got byes to the finals in practically every tournament they took seriously. Without his serve, Fed might have been a Seppi-type journeyman around the 40-50 mark - who knows

˥O˥ pƎ˥˥Oɹ┴ uǝǝq ʇsnɾ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn
In terms of talent, No one can match Rogi, he is THE Greatest of all time without a doubt......I would stop watching tennis entirely when he hangs up....Federer is tennis for me, the rest well they are there but all are baseline grinders who got totally benefited by the slow courts that we see today. The federer that we are seeing today is not the federer that we watched in his twenties.....Young sexi federer was absolutely amazing
 
N

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest
What surprises me that how the op and Kevin has described Fed opponents, Hewiit as a chance winner, Guga nearly done and others as one slam wonders and Kevin called Fed era easy in which apart from Roddick nobody is showing any desire and he is banking on new generation.
So this type of post are cyclical, posted in 2004 , getting posted now and will be posted in future also.
 
N

nowhereman

Guest
What surprises me that how the op and Kevin has described Fed opponents, Hewiit as a chance winner, Guga nearly done and others as one slam wonders and Kevin called Fed era easy in which apart from Roddick nobody is showing any desire and he is banking on new generation.
So this type of post are cyclical, posted in 2004 , getting posted now and will be posted in future also.
Yup. Weak era/weak competition arguments are pretty much what keep this place alive. As long as tennis is played, weak era debates will continue.
 
N

nowhereman

Guest
Yep. Im one of the holdouts from the very first boards. Probably not many of us left due to old age :)
Since you're one of the oldest members on this site, what do you have to say about this current era on ttw compared to other eras? Everyone says we're in a weak troll era, so when was the strongest era on this site?
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Since you're one of the oldest members on this site, what do you have to say about this current era on ttw compared to other eras? Everyone says we're in a weak troll era, so when was the strongest era on this site?

In terms of overall annoyance, nothing can compare to the Nadal Troll Era in his heyday. This place was swarmed by thousands of 12 year olds in cutoff shirts and capris high on sugary cereal while posting here and jumping on the couch cushions simultaneously. Players like Rosol and Darcis sent them running to their moms crying and Djokovic has killed them off like disinfectant. The trolls of today seem a little sophisticated and intelligent and thus don't irritate me as much.
 
Top