Laver says Roger can win the French Open

BeatlesFan

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
'It isn't a far-reaching situation' says Rod Laver who backs Roger Federer to win the 2017 French Open

Tennis legend Rod Laver believes Roger Federer's form can help him to win this year's French Open.

The 35-year-old missed the second half of the last calendar year due to a knee injury. He lost to Milos Raonic in the 2016 Wimbledon semi-final and pulled out of rest of the season to focus on his recovery.

Federer returned to action earlier in January and since then, he has won the 2017 Australian Open, Indian Wells Masters and the Miami Open. He defeated compatriot Stan Wawrinka at the Indian Wells Masters, while winning the other two finals after defeating Rafael Nadal.

He decided to take a 10-week break following his last success in Miami, meaning he will miss the entirety of the clay court season. There were concerns over the Swiss tennis ace's participation at the 2017 French Open that starts on 22 May, but Federer revealed he will take part in the second Grand Slam of the year. Laver has backed him to win his 19th Grand Slam title in Paris.

"The way he's playing. It isn't a far-reaching situation for him to win the French (Open)," Laver said.

Federer has defeated Nadal in the last three meetings. Laver explains a key aspect of the Australian Open winner's game that has helped him beat the Spaniard.

"It's night and day. It's like he found a totally new backhand. (Nadal) has that left-handed forehand that goes into Roger's backhand, so he usually starts the point behind. Now he's capable of holding up under the pressure Rafa puts him under," he explained.

Nadal has enjoyed success on clay court. He started the clay court season by winning the Monte- Carlo Masters and the Barcelona Open. He has his eyes set on the Madrid Open and success in the Spanish capital will make him one of the firm favourites to win the French Open.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/apos-isn-apos-t-far-101401900.html
 
Laver often has much confidence in Federer and I agree it isn't THAT far reaching. Will he? probably not, but who knows this has been a strange year and if he has luck with the draw and there are some surprise upsets, he might. The clear favorite is obviously Nadal, but who knows the stars might align for Fed. Wouldn't put any money on it tho :p
 
FO is the least likely for Federer.Even without the rest of the big 4 playing the clay slam, winning the event would be incredibly difficult for the fallen swiss.
 
Last edited:
For the first time on this forum, I'm surprised at people underrating Federer in some way.:eek:

Nadal will start favourite at French

Other than that, who clearly has a better shot than Federer?

No one's distinguished themself on clay, the usual suspects are out of sorts, the new generation still aren't taking a stand

While Federer has ravaged the slow hardcourts, which has been a decent indicator of how the clay season goes for quite awhile now

I think he's second favourite - somewhat, but not entirely - due to an insipid field

mike danny said:
Of course he can...

Will he? Hell NO.
Click to expand...

Mike, who do you think has better chances than Fed?

And what result are you expecting from him?
 
Tennisanity said:
If you say he can, then you can't say he won't. Contradiction. You must say it's unlikely.
Click to expand...
"Will he" is a question of outcome- of prediction. Saying "He won't" is just another way of saying "the odds are so far against it I have trouble believing it will happen."

Of course if he can he always has a chance, but the chance can be small enough to realistically say he won't win.
 
TripleATeam said:
"Will he" is a question of outcome- of prediction. Saying "He won't" is just another way of saying "the odds are so far against it I have trouble believing it will happen."

Of course if he can he always has a chance, but the chance can be small enough to realistically say he won't win.
Click to expand...

'Will he. No!' = will not = won't
 
Although Federer is the GOAT, to expect him to win a second Roland Garros title at the age of 35 is ambitious at best, and absurd at worst.

More likely is that the rampaging Rafa shall hoist aloft the Coupe des Mousqetaires for a tenth time, shortly after crushing the dreams of a desolate, disgraced, devilish Djokovic.

So be it.
 
Waspsting said:
For the first time on this forum, I'm surprised at people underrating Federer in some way.:eek:

Nadal will start favourite at French

Other than that, who clearly has a better shot than Federer?

No one's distinguished themself on clay, the usual suspects are out of sorts, the new generation still aren't taking a stand

While Federer has ravaged the slow hardcourts, which has been a decent indicator of how the clay season goes for quite awhile now

I think he's second favourite - somewhat, but not entirely - due to an insipid field



Mike, who do you think has better chances than Fed?

And what result are you expecting from him?
Click to expand...
The defending champion Djokovic, last year's finalist Murray and 2015 champion Wawrinka clearly has better chances besides Nadal obviously.

Just ask yourself, what has Federer done on the surface since 2012? Reached 2 finals at Rome only to lose to Nadal and Djokovic in straights and one 250 title at Istanbul.

I am not underrating Federer but rather rating him correctly on the surface which he isn't that strong on. This isn't to say he has absolutely zero chance because that's not possible mathematically but its rather negligible when you look at the bigger picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mike danny said:
Of course he can. Any player who is ranked no.4 CAN win a slam.

Will he? Hell NO.
Click to expand...

Phoenix1983 said:
Although Federer is the GOAT, to expect him to win a fifth Australian Open title at the age of 35 is ambitious at best, and absurd at worst.
Click to expand...

After what he has accomplished this season and how poorly the #1 and #2 players have fared...it's foolish to write him off at this point. He has showed none of the mental fragility that plagued him in years past and is knocking the cover off the ball.
 
BeatlesFan said:
'It isn't a far-reaching situation' says Rod Laver who backs Roger Federer to win the 2017 French Open

Tennis legend Rod Laver believes Roger Federer's form can help him to win this year's French Open.

The 35-year-old missed the second half of the last calendar year due to a knee injury. He lost to Milos Raonic in the 2016 Wimbledon semi-final and pulled out of rest of the season to focus on his recovery.

Federer returned to action earlier in January and since then, he has won the 2017 Australian Open, Indian Wells Masters and the Miami Open. He defeated compatriot Stan Wawrinka at the Indian Wells Masters, while winning the other two finals after defeating Rafael Nadal.

He decided to take a 10-week break following his last success in Miami, meaning he will miss the entirety of the clay court season. There were concerns over the Swiss tennis ace's participation at the 2017 French Open that starts on 22 May, but Federer revealed he will take part in the second Grand Slam of the year. Laver has backed him to win his 19th Grand Slam title in Paris.

"The way he's playing. It isn't a far-reaching situation for him to win the French (Open)," Laver said.

Federer has defeated Nadal in the last three meetings. Laver explains a key aspect of the Australian Open winner's game that has helped him beat the Spaniard.

"It's night and day. It's like he found a totally new backhand. (Nadal) has that left-handed forehand that goes into Roger's backhand, so he usually starts the point behind. Now he's capable of holding up under the pressure Rafa puts him under," he explained.

Nadal has enjoyed success on clay court. He started the clay court season by winning the Monte- Carlo Masters and the Barcelona Open. He has his eyes set on the Madrid Open and success in the Spanish capital will make him one of the firm favourites to win the French Open.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/apos-isn-apos-t-far-101401900.html
Click to expand...
Dupe thread
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/your-2017-rg-champion.589101/#post-11185021
 
People writing Fed off too easily. 2014 MC final and 2015 Rome final and he didn't have a baseline game back then. He only lost to elite in form Wawrinka and Djokovic.

Now with his new BH he can do some damage I think. He won convincingly in Miami on a slow as molasses surfaces he's been crap on since 2007 so don't be surprised if he goes deep.

Equally I wouldn't be surprised if someone unexpected took him out.
 
Last edited:
xFullCourtTenniSx said:
Again, it's not about choice. It's about capability. He is fully capable of winning. Whether he actually does it is a different question.

I can immediately drive an automatic car. I can't immediately drive a manual. It's not about choice.
Click to expand...

If you say someone WILL NOT win a tournament then you are saying they won't win the tournament 100%. But there is a chance Fed will win. Therefore to say WILL NOT is incorrect. I agree it's not about choice in this case. It's about using the correct terminology.
 
Tennisanity said:
If you say someone WILL NOT win a tournament then you are saying they won't win the tournament 100%. But there is a chance Fed will win. Therefore to say WILL NOT is incorrect. I agree it's not about choice in this case. It's about using the correct terminology.
Click to expand...

Will is not an absolute term. Otherwise terms like "will surely [verb]" and "will likely [verb]" wouldn't exist because they'd either be redundant or self-contradictory.

Again, it's not incorrect to say anyone can win the lottery (jackpot), but you will not. You are fully capable of winning the lottery, by choice or not. But the odds are so far stacked against you that the possibility of you winning can effectively be ignored.

By your view, any predictive statement, especially with regards to gambling, are all incorrect and self-contradictory. Of course a coin can land on heads, but it cannot 100% of the time land on heads (even with a rigged coin; because there exists an extremely slim chance that it lands on it's edge, but since it's effectively impossible even given millions of tries we ignore that possibility). Therefore, to even say that you think it will land on heads, or is going to land on heads, is by your view a self-contradictory statement. Because a person cannot think that something will happen 100% when they know the odds are 50%.

So yes, it's about using the correct terminology and understanding the context that comes with it, rather than knock on someone for not using the narrow definitions you defined yourself, rather than the universally accepted definitions by those who study language (who thankfully give the rest of us dictionaries so we don't have to study it ourselves).
 
xFullCourtTenniSx said:
Will is not an absolute term. Otherwise terms like "will surely [verb]" and "will likely [verb]" wouldn't exist because they'd either be redundant or self-contradictory.

Again, it's not incorrect to say anyone can win the lottery (jackpot), but you will not. You are fully capable of winning the lottery, by choice or not. But the odds are so far stacked against you that the possibility of you winning can effectively be ignored.

By your view, any predictive statement, especially with regards to gambling, are all incorrect and self-contradictory. Of course a coin can land on heads, but it cannot 100% of the time land on heads (even with a rigged coin; because there exists an extremely slim chance that it lands on it's edge, but since it's effectively impossible even given millions of tries we ignore that possibility). Therefore, to even say that you think it will land on heads, or is going to land on heads, is by your view a self-contradictory statement. Because a person cannot think that something will happen 100% when they know the odds are 50%.

So yes, it's about using the correct terminology and understanding the context that comes with it, rather than knock on someone for not using the narrow definitions you defined yourself, rather than the universally accepted definitions by those who study language (who thankfully give the rest of us dictionaries so we don't have to study it ourselves).
Click to expand...

If the probability of rain is 0.1%, you cannot say it will not rain. Very likely it won't but you cannot say it won't.

Correction: You of course CAN say it, but by saying it you are incorrect. By definition. If you are okay with being incorrect, then that is fine. Say it.
 
KINGROGER said:
People writing Fed off too easily. 2014 MC final and 2015 Rome final and he didn't have a baseline game back then. He only lost to elite in form Wawrinka and Djokovic.

Now with his new BH he can do some damage I think. He won convincingly in Miami on a slow as molasses surfaces he's been crap on since 2007 so don't be surprised if he goes deep.

Equally I wouldn't be surprised if someone unexpected took him out.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but I disagree with the bold part. He saved MPs against Tomas and was pushed to the brink against Nick. It was not convincing to me. The final against Rafa was but not the whole torunament. IW was won convincingly IMO.
 
Hitman's Gurl said:
I am sorry but I disagree with the bold part. He saved MPs against Tomas and was pushed to the brink against Nick. It was not convincing to me. The final against Rafa was but not the whole torunament. IW was won convincingly IMO.
Click to expand...
court-pace-average.jpg
 
Tennisanity said:
If the probability of rain is 0.1%, you cannot say it will not rain. Very likely it won't but you cannot say it won't.

Correction: You of course CAN say it, but by saying it you are incorrect. By definition. If you are okay with being incorrect, then that is fine. Say it.
Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't be incorrect because the word "will" contains more than one definition and use. If you can't understand that, you can't use the term "by definition" since you don't even understand what definitions are.
 
xFullCourtTenniSx said:
No, you wouldn't be incorrect because the word "will" contains more than one definition and use. If you can't understand that, you can't use the term "by definition" since you don't even understand what definitions are.
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect. In that context, 'will' does not contain more than one definition.

For your irrelevant predictive example. It is incorrect to say the coin will be heads. It is correct to say the coin will be head or tails.

"I predict Federer will not win" is not the same as "Federer will not win." Unless you have some a priori knowledge that it is 100% impossible for Fed to win. But no one has that. Therefore you cannot say that. It's very unlikely Federer will win is correct if you believe that. Frankly, I believe he has a better chance than most give him.
 
Last edited:
6-3 6-0 said:
The defending champion Djokovic, last year's finalist Murray and 2015 champion Wawrinka clearly has better chances besides Nadal obviously.

Just ask yourself, what has Federer done on the surface since 2012? Reached 2 finals at Rome only to lose to Nadal and Djokovic in straights and one 250 title at Istanbul.
.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it from a recent-past record perspective on the grounds that the present seems to be hugely different from the past... Federer hadn't reached so little as the semis of both Indian Wells and Miami since 2011 either.

A combination of -

- Federer perhaps playing better than he has in a long time &
- Much of the rest of the field (including Djokovic and Murray) doing the opposite


makes, IMO, assessing present playing level (I'm thinking about 2017 here) a more appropriate way to look at the matter than results in recent years (I'll take 2013-2016 for that).

Even so, Fed's isn't as bad as all that - seeing the way many people are talking, one would think we're dealing with Nadal's recent record at Wimbledon! (btw, I also think Nadal has better chances at Wimbledon than he has in ages too for the same reasons - that's a whole other thread)

Excluding 2016 (I think we can agree that Fed's circumstances from than to now at least are vastly different) - Federer was runner up at 3/7 Clay Masters finals

By comparison, in 2014-16 period, Wawrinka is 1/9 and Murray is also 3/7 (Wawrinka won 1 title, Murray 2). Even Nadal is "just" 4/9 (2 titles). Only Djokovic outstrips everyone here

At the French, Federer's last three outings have yielded 2 quarter finals and a 4th round. Hardly the stuff of sure-thing bets... but not nearly as bad as some of the appraisals here - "hell no", "won't", "absurd", "negligible", "Laver's off his meds", "fanboism" etc. etc. - make it out to be.

Wawrinka's record in his last 3 French's leading into his victory weren't as good

-
Tennis_Hands said:
This is a good example of how greats of the game spew whatever banalities are en vogue to keep the business going.

Pity.
Click to expand...

Its not their fault. People stick a mike in their face and ask them questions. Some, like Laver, generally give very nice replies (the kind you'd give to a hostess who asks you "How's the food?")


Tennisanity said:
court-pace-average.jpg
Click to expand...

Do you have something like this for the Grand Slam events? I'm particularly curious to see how Aus stacks up relative to IW and MIA... as well as US Open to TOR and CIN
 
Waspsting said:
I hadn't thought of it from a recent-past record perspective on the grounds that the present seems to be hugely different from the past... Federer hadn't reached so little as the semis of both Indian Wells and Miami since 2011 either.

A combination of -

- Federer perhaps playing better than he has in a long time &
- Much of the rest of the field (including Djokovic and Murray) doing the opposite
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you if I actually *see* Federer playing the same way on clay this year but unfortunately he isn't and has withdrawn from all clay masters. Clay has historically been his weakest surface and is a surface that requires heavy defense and outlasting your opponent in rallies. Honestly speaking, I don't see Federer doing that to elite players like Nadal, Djokovic and the likes. Fed may surprise us but unless he actually does I'm not ready to believe. First I wanna see the result i.e. he is indeed playing high level on clay and then give him his fair chance IMO.

Waspsting said:
Do you have something like this for the Grand Slam events? I'm particularly curious to see how Aus stacks up relative to IW and MIA... as well as US Open to TOR and CIN
Click to expand...
7s97cyEh.jpg


This was shown during the AO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
‘Andy Murray could have won a calendar or career Grand Slam if not for injury,’ says legend Rod Laver
2
Replies
85
Views
4K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
A
  • Poll Poll
How many more French Open titles can Nadal win
Replies
6
Views
334
DSH
DSH
B
Best red clay player to never win the French Open
2
Replies
72
Views
2K
abmk
abmk
T
Will Murray be the first player in the Open era to win every important title available to him?
Replies
15
Views
823
timnz
T
GasquetGOAT
  • Poll Poll
Novak Djokovic to win French Open 2008!
Replies
41
Views
3K
WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
Back
Top