Have we seen the last of Federer on Clay courts?

Will Federer play on Clay again?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 58.1%
  • No

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Maybe(Other)

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • Total voters
    31

VolleyHelena

Professional
At 36 and having skipped French Open last two years,do you think Federer will have a final go at an elusive 2nd French Open title and the missing Masters in his resume Monte Carlo and Rome

Will Federer give up Clay to give his all on his favorite Grand Slam?
 

Sport

Legend
I am of the opinion that with guys like Federer and Nadal we can never be sure if they are "done" on a particular surface until they are retired. People here on TTW were saying that Nadal was done on hard courts after his loss on Cincinnati against Kyrgios, but look now. The same applies to Roger. He can still surprise us even on clay. He is too good, so I still believe in him.
 
Last edited:

Spencer Gore

Professional
You're such a repetitive troll :rolleyes:
You're going to have to try and grow up and realise that people have different opinions than you about the game of tennis. Trying to dismiss everyone as a troll makes you look foolish.

No true great should ever avoid tournaments because they think they can't win. Federer's record on clay is poor. It counts against him in the all-time-greatest argument - same as Borg's inability to win under the New York lights counts against him. It's just silly to deny it.
 

VolleyHelena

Professional
You're going to have to try and grow up and realise that people have different opinions than you about the game of tennis. Trying to dismiss everyone as a troll makes you look foolish.

No true great should ever avoid tournaments because they think they can't win. Federer's record on clay is poor. It counts against him in the all-time-greatest argument - same as Borg's inability to win under the New York lights counts against him. It's just silly to deny it.
Cool
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
You're going to have to try and grow up and realise that people have different opinions than you about the game of tennis. Trying to dismiss everyone as a troll makes you look foolish.

No true great should ever avoid tournaments because they think they can't win. Federer's record on clay is poor. It counts against him in the all-time-greatest argument - same as Borg's inability to win under the New York lights counts against him. It's just silly to deny it.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
At 36+, feeling good in your body is not something to take for granted, and a lot of morons on this forum think Federer should just play and play and play, and if not, he is a coward or something, while they don't have any knowledge on how it feels to be 36 while trying to compete at the same physical level as you were in your prime.
 
Last edited:

Maestroesque

Professional
At 36+, feeling good in your body is not something to take for granted, and a lot of morons on this forum thinks Federer should just play and play and play, and if not, he is a coward or something, while they don't have any knowledge on how it feels to be 36 and trying to compete at the same physical level as you were in your prime.
Exactly, and the game is so much more physical than it was before, 3 out of the top 4 play mainly rallying tennis, asking a 36 year old to go against a baseline rallier on a slow *** surface is difficult, no matter how talented the player is.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
At 36+, feeling good in your body is not something to take for granted, and a lot of morons on this forum thinks Federer should just play and play and play, and if not, he is a coward or something, while they don't have any knowledge on how it feels to be 36 and trying to compete at the same physical level as you were in your prime.
Their ignorance is a complete package.

:D
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
Oh boy. Is this fanboyism or religious zealotry?
No. It's an objective observation.
Vilas - 49 clay titles.
Borg -30 clay titles.
Lendl -28 clay titles.
Wilander -20 clay titles
Muster -40 clay titles
Kuerten-20 clay titles.
Nadal -53 clay titles.
Federer -11 clay titles.

Federer's record on clay is poor, compared to the greats on the surface. Just facts. And facts are your friend.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
No. It's an objective observation.
Vilas - 49 clay titles.
Borg -30 clay titles.
Lendl -28 clay titles.
Wilander -20 clay titles
Muster -40 clay titles
Kuerten-20 clay titles.
Nadal -53 clay titles.
Federer -11 clay titles.

Federer's record on clay is poor, compared to the greats on the surface. Just facts. And facts are your friend.
Yep, Muster is over 3 times better than Federer on clay!

#idiotsfollowingtennisfromaverydarkplace

:cool:
 

Sport

Legend
Exactly, and the game is so much more physical than it was before, 3 out of the top 4 play mainly rallying tennis, asking a 36 year old to go against a baseline rallier on a slow *** surface is difficult, no matter how talented the player is.
He was 35 this French Open edition.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
In a scenario where he has problems with his back early season and doesnt play deep in HC tournaments I think he might play clay if his body is fine for that. But I dont think he will play a full HC season pluss clay again.
 

Gazelle

Legend
You're going to have to try and grow up and realise that people have different opinions than you about the game of tennis. Trying to dismiss everyone as a troll makes you look foolish.

No true great should ever avoid tournaments because they think they can't win. Federer's record on clay is poor. It counts against him in the all-time-greatest argument - same as Borg's inability to win under the New York lights counts against him. It's just silly to deny it.
No need to make a specific sentence bold.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
I guess Fed has to be wise with his body as we saw just recently so it is best for him to skip the most demanding surface. There is little to be gained for him either, he hasn't won the French since 2009 and he knows it won't happen again. It's best for him to rest and focus on Wimbledon where he does have a shot

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
No. It's an objective observation.
Vilas - 49 clay titles.
Borg -30 clay titles.
Lendl -28 clay titles.
Wilander -20 clay titles
Muster -40 clay titles
Kuerten-20 clay titles.
Nadal -53 clay titles.
Federer -11 clay titles.

Federer's record on clay is poor, compared to the greats on the surface. Just facts. And facts are your friend.
Few important facts missing. How many clay tournaments were played by each? What's their winning percentage? What is their percentage of finals made? What is the breakdown of level of tournament? 250? 500? 1000? Slam?

Let's look at Federer. He's made 5 FO finals, lost 4 to Nadal. He's won 6 Masters 1000 clay court titles out of making 16 finals. Those 11 titles came out of being in 26 finals. He was considered the 2nd best clay court player in the world, just behind Nadal, for many years. So a fuller picture is required in order to conclude that he paled in comparison to the "greats" on the surface.
 
Last edited:

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
For Federer the timing of the clay season sucks because Halle/Wimbledon is the strength of his season. I can't really fault him for positioning himself best for the tournaments that suit him. Still, I'd like to see him compete in one of the Masters( Rome, Monte Carlo or Madrid) and then play in Paris.
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
Few important facts missing. How many clay tournaments were played by each? What's their winning percentage? What is their percentage of finals made? What is the breakdown of level of tournament? 250? 500? 1000? Slam?

Let's look at Federer. He's made 5 FO finals, lost 4 to Nadal. He's won 6 Masters 1000 clay court titles out of making 16 finals. Those 11 titles came out of being in 26 finals. He was considered the 2nd best clay court player in the world, just behind Nadal, for many years. So a fuller picture is required in order to conclude that he paled in comparison to the "greats" on the surface.
You can try and twist things any way you wish to suit your agenda. The facts are clear: one clay victory every two years is not a strong record.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
Hopefully French Open, but if he feels that he needs more time.
Then what was nearly the 4th major, Rome.
else Monaco for the prestige.

Would be nice to see him in the the most prestigious grass tournament outside the majors in Queens, but that isn't going to happen.

It will be interesting to see what Halle becomes once he retires. Might release some extra funding to spend on the new names but might relegate it to a low tier 500.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
You can try and twist things any way you wish to suit your agenda. The facts are clear: one clay victory every two years is not a strong record.
I thought we were dealing with facts. What is this twist thing you're on about?

You offer 1 number as though that's definitive proof. It's not. That's not how statistics (nor being objective) works. Using that and that alone is what's called having an agenda.

If someone were to win 60 250 level clay court tournaments and nothing else would they then be the greatest clay courter ever based on that alone?
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
S
I thought we were dealing with facts. What is this twist thing you're on about?

You offer 1 number as though that's definitive proof. It's not. That's not how statistics (nor being objective) works. Using that and that alone is what's called having an agenda.

If someone were to win 60 250 level clay court tournaments and nothing else would they then be the greatest clay courter ever based on that alone?
Sometimes, you just have to admit the facts are against you and accept things the way they are. 11 clay titles in 20 years is an average to poor record for a player of Federer's ability. There really is no room for intelligent debate.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
S

Sometimes, you just have to admit the facts are against you and accept things the way they are. 11 clay titles in 20 years is an average to poor record for a player of Federer's ability. There really is no room for intelligent debate.
Facts aren't for or against anything. They're facts. They don't much care what anyone thinks. It's not the facts, it's the conclusion you're drawing.

Besides, thought you were being objective. Is that now off the table?

What's your answer to the question - if someone were to win 60 250 level clay court tournaments and nothing else would they then be the greatest clay courter ever based on that alone? That's what you're arguing, that 1 number is all that matters. It doesn't matter that Federer's winning percentage on clay is in the top bunch, or that Muster played almost exclusively on clay (40 clay titles, 4 non clay) or any other statistic... none of that matters? Only that 1 number?
 
Last edited:

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
It's pretty pathetic if he keeps choosing to miss one of the two original majors because it exposes the limits of his game. Not really behaviour worthy of an all-time great.
he's played every french open from like 1999 to 2015, pipe down with he's skipping it b/c it exposes the limits of his game. he's won 1 clay slam, 4 time finalist and iirc won clay court masters. if he wanted to avoid clay b/c it exposes him he would have done it a long time ago.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
You're going to have to try and grow up and realise that people have different opinions than you about the game of tennis. Trying to dismiss everyone as a troll makes you look foolish.

No true great should ever avoid tournaments because they think they can't win. Federer's record on clay is poor. It counts against him in the all-time-greatest argument - same as Borg's inability to win under the New York lights counts against him. It's just silly to deny it.
except fed actually won rg and if fed's record on clay is poor, so is almost everyone else's. he was more or less 2nd to nadal when they were both dominating.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I'd like to think we'll see him on the dirt at least once before he retires. He'll probably play next year.
i know some people think fed dislikes clay b/c he hasnt had the best results in contrast to other surfaces but iirc he has said that actually does enjoy playing on the surface and i dont believe he would have tried very hard to achieve the career slam if he didn't care about the surface. with that being said, idt his body will hold up anymore on clay. i could see him playing rg one last time before he retires though.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I guess Fed has to be wise with his body as we saw just recently so it is best for him to skip the most demanding surface. There is little to be gained for him either, he hasn't won the French since 2009 and he knows it won't happen again. It's best for him to rest and focus on Wimbledon where he does have a shot

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk
yeah, he's done what he can on that surface, most thought he'd never even achieve winning the french open. it opened up for him and he managed to do it and i'd to think he's pretty content with where his clay court resume stands. not like he's a noob or something on the surface but given that his revamped style of play post like 2012 or w/e is much more suited for faster courts, i doubt he will extend his body any further to play on clay. he said he's at the point where he will only enter tournaments that he think he has a good shot of winning and he won't enter just for the sake of it.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Few important facts missing. How many clay tournaments were played by each? What's their winning percentage? What is their percentage of finals made? What is the breakdown of level of tournament? 250? 500? 1000? Slam?

Let's look at Federer. He's made 5 FO finals, lost 4 to Nadal. He's won 6 Masters 1000 clay court titles out of making 16 finals. Those 11 titles came out of being in 26 finals. He was considered the 2nd best clay court player in the world, just behind Nadal, for many years. So a fuller picture is required in order to conclude that he paled in comparison to the "greats" on the surface.
exactly also love your icon/avatar or w/e you wanna call it. excited for the final!
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
OP hard to say tbh. i think it really depends on how fed is feeling at the beginning of the year, how hungry he is for another wimbledon. part of me feels like he is done with that surface and if any ****** says its because he doesnt want to be exposed...lol. if that was the case he would have skipped in his prime.

fed says a lot of things. up until recently he said he was definitely going to play the french open but then last minute decided not to. he said that he might next year, but that could also change very easily. i would hope that he does play just one last time before he retires. though, lmao i guess we'll know when his retirement year is if that's the case.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
All I remember is him mentioning this is a one time thing when he decided to skip this years French Open
I hope thats the thing. To skip a major is terrible thing in my book unless you arent injured. I wouldnt be happy if Rafa withdraws from Wimbledon because he feels he has no chance anymore.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
I hope thats the thing. To skip a major is terrible thing in my book unless you arent injured. I wouldnt be happy if Rafa withdraws from Wimbledon because he feels he has no chance anymore.
hasn't rafa skipped multiple majors throughout his career, and they were all due to injuries? i honestly doubt that, also some could have been preventative. idk if you count that injury related b/c fed said that he didn't feel quite right on clay last year. terrible is such an exaggeration esp at this stage in fed's career. he's shown up every year at rg despite his chances being incredibly slim against rafa during his peak.

i honestly think roger might have been scarred by 2016 and the fact that like for the first time ever he missed a chunk of the year, the same guy who was one of the most consistent in gs appearances. with the back issue flaring up as well, i have no doubt he will be extra selective.
 
Top