D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
How is this even a question? For any player? Slams are the historically defining pinnacle of this sport. Nothing comes close.
If Fed wins Indian wells- play Miami or skip and have a final attempt at Monte Carlo/ Rome?
- Thread starter DanG7
- Start date
How is this even a question? For any player? Slams are the historically defining pinnacle of this sport. Nothing comes close.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I am very surprised some Fed fans are choosing an OGM over another slam. Incredulous, actually.
Roger already has an OGM and it has no significance historically whatsoever. It also wouldn't help his legacy much at all if he won Rome and MC, thus completing the Masters 1000's. Had Novak won Cincy he would have achieved this and there would have been no headlines about it. Federer's obituary will begin with one stat: how many majors he's won. The second paragraph will address how many weeks at #1. Nobody gives one damn about how many Masters 1000's he won or whether he won singles OGM. A player's legacy revolves around one thing: major titles.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Hmmm...I see you're a member of "The Only Slams Matter" brigade. Slams are, of course, the most important and significant part of a player's legacy but they're not the ONLY part. The tour consists of many more tournaments than just the 4 Slams (it would have to do or the tour could not exist) and they all add to a player's legacy. Nobody just wins Slams and nothing else (well, Stan W has given it his best shot but even he never quite fully achieved it). If you look at the criteria for entry into the HoF, for instance, much more than just the Slam count is cited as being a part of a player's legacy and rightly so. The significance of the Slam count only really started with Sampras. Before that, some Slams were not even considerd the equal of certain other tournaments. So, it's a bit ironic you appealing to history in order to dismiss other titles when the Slam count itself doesn't have an impeccable history behind it either.
George Turner
Hall of Fame
I'd rather Fed won Monte Carlo/Rome than an Olympic gold medal.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
While other things have their place, including masters, Olympics, WTF, YE1, nothing comes close to a slam. Federer would never sacrifice winning a slam, especially Wimbledon for a couple of masters events he has yet to win, or even single olympic gold. No player would.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
No, the sliding on clay is not good for Fed's knee. It's good for Nadal's though apparently
In other words Federer is afraid to get embarrassed on clay so he says its bad for his knee
Zhilady
Professional
By "embarrassed on clay", do you mean like what's been happening to Nadal on grass in recent times?
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I never said slams were the "only" part of a player's legacy, I said they were far and away the most important part and this isn't even arguable. Weeks at #1 are after that, then anyone can cherry pick what matters after that. The "only slams matter" club has many amazing members, among them Lendl, Mac, Sampras and Federer. Nadal has also morphed into this in the past 3-4 years.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Maybe if you throw in Barcelona as well.
Federer definitely not. He said many times that the Olympic Gold medal counts as much as a Slam.
For Monte Carlo and Rome there is no need to discuss though.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Way, way longer than that. The guy's an underrated opportunist, always has been. The only masters he gives in a 100% are the first two masters in CC season (the schedule changed during the years).
For all the talk about playing himself to death and poor scheduling, the guy was only injured once or twice for his best part of the season in the last 10+ years. I don't think that's a coincidence.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Fed says a great many things (and backtracks on quite a few of them), actions however speak louder than words.
He never scheduled his season around Olympics (was quite tired in 2004 for example), nor he seems to have that extra gear that is undoubtebly there in slams, I can't really see Blake getting better of Fed in a slam no matter the circumstance.
In 2016 when Fed was on his last legs the tournament he risked his health for was Wimbledon, not OG.
Tennisanity
Legend
No, it's Nadal who is embarrassed now which is why he bowed out of HCs after what happened last year. Fed legitimately had knee concerns. How do we know? Fed rarely is injured so when he does have something you can bet it's real. On the other hand, Nadal cry's wolf every other day. He's just a cry baby who can't take losing.
AceSalvo
Legend
Baby Bull these days... pfff...
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Up to Wimbledon he thought he was playing okay. It's only after his fall at Wimbledon that he decided to call time on his season otherwise he would have played the Olympics.
justasport
Professional
Indian Wells (1000)
Miami (1000)
Madrid (1000)
French Open (2000)
Halle (500)
Wimbledon (2000)
Cincinnati (1000)
US Open (2000)
Shanghai (1000)
Basel (500)
The Masters (1500)
I think this schedule is his best bet to stay healthy and 100% fit, gives him the best chance to finish the year ranked #1, and with a little luck gives him the best chance to win the remaining three majors to secure the CYGS at age 36/37. He could even give Miami a miss, and if he were to win the French Open he could give Halle a miss as well so he could be 100% for Wimbledon. He's won Wimbledon twice with no preparation (2007-2009). Both of those years he played long clay court seasons, winning the title in Paris in 2009 and finishing runner-up in 2007 to Nadal.
Miami (1000)
Madrid (1000)
French Open (2000)
Halle (500)
Wimbledon (2000)
Cincinnati (1000)
US Open (2000)
Shanghai (1000)
Basel (500)
The Masters (1500)
I think this schedule is his best bet to stay healthy and 100% fit, gives him the best chance to finish the year ranked #1, and with a little luck gives him the best chance to win the remaining three majors to secure the CYGS at age 36/37. He could even give Miami a miss, and if he were to win the French Open he could give Halle a miss as well so he could be 100% for Wimbledon. He's won Wimbledon twice with no preparation (2007-2009). Both of those years he played long clay court seasons, winning the title in Paris in 2009 and finishing runner-up in 2007 to Nadal.
Last edited:
Well, I think that it would have had significance if he had won some of those finals in MC and Rome back in the days, like rome 2006. Nowadays, don't think a win would add much to legacy (still, finally winning them at 36 after so many years.
He had a few opportunities where he did not have to beat Nadal, like MC 2014 or Rome 2015, where he could have done it, and yet, he didn't.. It's not meant to be
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Didn't he skip RG also, after that loss to Thiem in Rome? If he was playing okay up to Wimbledon, he wouldn't have missed a slam for the first time in a million years just a few weeks earlier. Yes, had Wimbledon not become the straw that broke the camel's back, he would have kept on playing, but he was not exactly playing OK up to Wimbledon. It was obvious he was struggling.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Well, he obviously thought he was fit enough to play Wimbledon and he did reach the semis there before his injured knee gave way. If that hadn't happened he would have gone on to play selected target events like the Olympics. But his fall at Wimby quickly put paid to any such intentions.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Like I said, had he stayed fit after Wimbledon, he would have kept on playing, Olympics, Cincinnati, USO, Shanghai, Basel, WTF.
But, by no means was a guy who skipped his first slam in like forever playing OK up to Wimbledon. It was obvious, he was struggling. You know better, and so do I. I will say this though, had Olympics happened before Wimbledon, then it could have been the other way round, it was just how the year was scheduled.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Monte Carlo? Maybe, because after MC, there's still a long time left until Wimbledon, but Rome? He'd rather play RG without Rome. I guess Rome is not a good idea. I think it is best for Federer to skip clay season like last year, but if he wants to play some clay events, he can play just RG or play MC and RG if he wants more than 1 tourney. MC is so far away from RG, so Fed can take plenty of rest afterwards. Rogi can still play RG without any lead-up clay events as well. Just use the 1st week as a practice. I think he is good enough to do that. If he loses early, so be it. What he really needs to concentrate on is Wimbledon at this stage. Rome - RG - Halle - Wimbledon is just too packed and Federer won't have much energy left in the tank after Halle.
zagor
Bionic Poster
He already had troubles in the CC season and skipped a slam (FO) after playing 65 of them in a row. If not for Wimbledon, I reckon he would have called it quits for the year there and then.
I don't want to devalue Olympics but I don't believe players consider it to be on par with slams, no matter what they say or how much patriotic they are.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I'm glad you're Fed's doctor and know his case very well.
Basically, in your world, Fed has to be an idiot and injure himself just for the sake of playing. I'm glad he is smart.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Now you're talking
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Except Fed is a decade older now compared to those years. He is not going to risk his Wimb preparation.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Just look at how many players skipped the Olympics in 2016. Even Isner IIRC chose a small tournament over the Olympics.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Olympics are unique in a sense that it really depends on an individual player how much value they put on it. Tennis doesn't really have a rich history in Olympics but I do think the field has been pretty strong in this era, all of the top stars put up a good effor to get a medal for their country (especially Murray and Nadal).
However, slams are slams. Just the way it is in tennis, especially in this era.
I don’t think the country matters that much. In a single’s sport it’s every man for himself. Otherwise I fully agree with you though. I would range an Olympic gold medal very high if I’d be a world class player myself.
Maybe that’s because I became a big fan of the Olympic games even a year before I became a tennis fan (with 6 and 7 years that was)...
albertobra
Hall of Fame
Not sure about some fans, but I am pretty much sure that Fed would take it.
Fed already has 20 GS. He will reach 23-24? Maybe more? Who knows what the GOAT has for us tennis fans.
Just one GS less won't change his greatness.
Now get your name written on the Olympics, Montecarlo and Rome would really be "something more"!
Last edited:
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
What happened last year in IW and Miami that he should be 'embarrassed about' ?
Tennisanity
Legend
Destroyed by his one-time pigeon?
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
Nobody would take a masters over a slam.
Which is why it’s so very confusing when people say go for Miami and skip RG. If he’s healthy and can do it keep it to the slams as much as possible.
Masters and 500’s are for strategic points and keeping match tuned.
At this stage in Fed’s career it is all about the slams.
Which is why it’s so very confusing when people say go for Miami and skip RG. If he’s healthy and can do it keep it to the slams as much as possible.
Masters and 500’s are for strategic points and keeping match tuned.
At this stage in Fed’s career it is all about the slams.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't put anything past a healthy Federer tbh.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Do I get all 3? Throw in the WTF and you have a deal.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Iirc Mac was asked at Wimbledon last year if he were in Federer's position would he rather win another major or get back to #1, and Mac said #1.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
A big part of that is because the Olympics don't reward any points. So unless you know you have a legitimate shot at a podium position, it may not be worth it. The only other reason would be the thrill of getting to do the opening ceremonies and represent your country. But I'm betting John already crossed that off his bucket list in 2012 (and 2008,maybe?)
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Bigger part is no prize money.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Mac also says Nadal has the best volley in men's tennis.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Oh don't get me wrong, I think he's off his rocker most of the time and flip flops so much he can't remember what he said 5 minutes ago.
But I think the point stands that he's not necessarily a "slams only" kind of guy. A big part because he played in the crappy Australia days. If slam count mattered most he would've played there every year.
Similar threads
