Multi-poll: When will Federer's consecutive majors run come to an end?

[ctbmar]

Federer could very well be embarking on a run of consecutive majors like his record of 23 consecutive finals. Federer has won Wimbledon 2005, US open 2005 already. If he wins Australian Open 2006, it will be 3 majors in a row. Sampras did this feat when he won Wimbledon 1993, US open 1993, Australian 1994. But I did not have high hopes of Sampras winning the French because of the many good clay courters like Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Berasategui, Chang, Agassi who could defeat him on clay. But as for Federer, his only rival on clay is Nadal and Federer was able to hang with Nadal for the whole match, won the 2nd set, and was on par early in the 3rd set before losing his strategy and lost the match. It was not a convincing win in any means by Nadal because of the uneasy look on Nadal showed it all that Federer was giving him some problems. So Federer's chance of winning the French Open 2006 will be better than Sampras(1994). If he wins the Australian Open 2006, his confidence will sky-rocket again and he has a chance of creating history by winning 4 majors in a row: A Federer Slam. If he manages to achieve the Federer Slam, he will definitely be able to achieve the Calender Grandslam next. The destiny lies in his own hands, so for him to lose it, it will really be a waste like the 2 other majors that he did not win in 2005.

So the big question is :when will Federer's consecutive majors run come to an end?
I am predicting that Federer will win the Calender Grandslam in 2006 and the Australian Open in 2007, then after achieving these feats, he will get complacent and have less motivation, succumbing to a loss at the French Open 2007. Roger Federer is an ambitious tennis player, that's why my prediction got to be ambitious too...

 

[kicker75]

Fed I think has a really good shot of winning the 06 French.

One, if he plays on clay like he played that 2nd set against Nadal (in his loss at this year's French). (Nadal even said after that match that he hoped Fed didn't play like that the rest of the match, cause all Nadal could do that 2nd set was sit and watch Federer dominate him...this on clay)

Two, it's the one major he doesn't have. And although it seems Fed can get complacent every once in a while, I think not having that title will motivate him quite a bit.

I think it would help Fed though if he had very dry conditions at the French next year...

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Again, just my opinion, Fed is a better player on clay then Sampras, dont forget that there are other great clay courters, Coria, Gaudio, Guga, so dont say just Nadal.I think he has a shot, if he somehow pulls it out, it will be an impressive feat to his impressive stats.

I hope he makes a run at the Aussie Open, and gets a rematch with Safin, we will see.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

7 straight majors? This is getting a bit out of hand.

 

[ctbmar]

7 straight majors? This is getting a bit out of hand.

10 years ago, if you predict someone will win 23 consecutive finals when Borg & McEnroe, not even Sampras, created the previous record at 12 consecutive finals, people will say it is unheard of, impossible, out of hand...

 

[Phil]

I believe he'll win 20 majors by the time he retires, shortly after he turns 29:

2006: AO, Wimby, USO
2007: FO, Wimby, USO
2008: AO, Wimby
2009: FO, Wimby, USO
2010: AO, Wimby, USO

Sub-Total: 14/Total Majors: 20
Total singles tournaments won: 90

At that point, Mirka will have given birth to 4 yungunz' and weigh 220 lbs (99.79 kg); Roger's cows, the 15 that he will own by then, will be milking HER. Also, in 2008 Roger will begin training in earnest to become a certified Swiss watchmaker-the precision he displays on the court will be transfered to the watchmaking profession, where he will eventually produce "The Ace", a fine chronometer in the Swiss tradition, retailing for US$100,000. Roger, Mirka, his children and cows will then live happily ever after in a small, quaint village nestled at the foot of the Alps. The HILLS ARE ALIVE...

 

[Yours!05]

I believe he'll win 20 majors by the time he retires, shortly after he turns 29:

2006: AO, Wimby, USO
2007: FO, Wimby, USO
2008: AO, Wimby
2009: FO, Wimby, USO
2010: AO, Wimby, USO

Sub-Total: 14/Total Majors: 20
Total singles tournaments won: 90

At that point, Mirka will have given birth to 4 yungunz' and weigh 220 lbs (99.79 kg); Roger's cows, the 15 that he will own by then, will be milking HER. Also, in 2008 Roger will begin training in earnest to become a certified Swiss watchmaker-the precision he displays on the court will be transfered to the watchmaking profession, where he will eventually produce "The Ace", a fine chronometer in the Swiss tradition, retailing for US$100,000. Roger, Mirka, his children and cows will then live happily ever after in a small, quaint village nestled at the foot of the Alps. The HILLS ARE ALIVE...

What happened in 2008? Some sort of dairy cow flu? Nadal's last gasp?

 

[Phil]

What happened in 2008? Some sort of dairy cow flu?

He got bored-mid-life crisis and all that, and decides to skip the USO and take the rest of the season off-re-charge his batteries and rest the feet. He contemplates retirement during this period, but realizes that the adulation of the fans and Mirka's blindingly white smile (when he's winning) are even sweeter than the sweetest milk from his prize dairy cow, and makes a return just in time for the Bangkok open, plays the entire indoor season, and records THREE all-bagel matches in the Masters Championships. The rest is, of course (virtual) history...

 

[ctbmar]

wow so far 5 people have voted for the last option that Federer will keep winning Multiple GS. You guys are really more optimistic than me or just being playful at mocking this possibility??? Please share why you are so confident that Federer will win Multiple GS.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Sorry I misinterpreted the poll at first. I thought it meant consecutive years winning multiple(atleast 2 majors) so I voted for the wrong one. I believe his run will probably end at the French Open next year, not in 2008 as I originally posted. I do believe he will win the French someday, but there will never be a year I pick him to win it in all likelihood(things can change of course), whatever years he wins it will likely be as not the most likely pick for any one given year, but he will be enough of a chance over many years to win atleast one.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

ctbmar,
I'm not sure that 10 years ago anyone even knew what this consecutive finals record streak was. It wasn't really an important record until Fed went on this streak. During his commentary, mac mentioned that Fed broke his record of finals won, but couldn't even remember what the number was! Shows how important a record it was back then.

I'm sure Fed had no idea of the record until he was told of it.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

no idea
also curious if he's going to beat 81-3 by Mac in 1984
he needs two more tourneys

 

[ctbmar]

ctbmar,
I'm not sure that 10 years ago anyone even knew what this consecutive finals record streak was. It wasn't really an important record until Fed went on this streak. During his commentary, mac mentioned that Fed broke his record of finals won, but couldn't even remember what the number was! Shows how important a record it was back then.

I'm sure Fed had no idea of the record until he was told of it.

I kinda of agree with you.
Firstly, 20 years ago or more, when Borg/Mcenroe broke the previous record, someone must have told them about it. But to them, it may not be important, so they did not try to extend the record or their competitors beat their streak or they were not told about this record. This record is also a reward or a bonus that was told to Federer when he was reaching or on par with the previous record. In order to UNCONSCIOUSLY set this record, top players must have the desire to keep winning in all the finals they were in. Sooner or later, if they are always winning their finals, they will be told or are aware of such a record. The most important key to this record is that the player must firstly be dominating and always winning in all his finals. So it is quite hard to believe that top players do not want to set such a record or subconsiously/without knowingly set this record because top players definitely do not like to lose to their top rivals. But Federer values this piece of record because he mentioned quite a few times in his post-interviews after some finals that he was proud of his consecutive final win record. So Federer actually turned a record that was totally discarded and unimportant to most of the great tennis players and transformed it into a glorious record, that he definitely wants to put it out of reach from any future great players. This only shows how committed and how competitive Roger Federer is. Sampras was very competitive, but he just broke Emerson record by 1 and other greats are quite near his record at 11, 12, 13 majors...So 14 majors is not a record that can withstand a long time. If Federer won more majors when he was younger, I am sure he would try to break this record by a larger margin. That is why Federer is working so hard to win 3 majors wins in 2004, 2 semis in 2005 and 2 major wins in 2005 to catch up for lost time and break Sampras record. So it is the mindset of Federer to break and create records that set him apart.
Likewise, Tennis Masters Series tournaments were not so important to top players but Agassi regards them as important, that's why he has twice as many Master Series Shields than Sampras. So how important a record or tournament really depends on the mindset of the player, so by saying that in the past these record or tournaments are not important, that's why top players in the past are not motivated to achieve these record and win these tournaments, I find that these are merely excuses to discredit and undermine the achievements that Agassi and Federer have achieved. If tennis players are not hungry to break and create new records from old discarded records that are deemed unimportant, the tennis standard will be stagnant and remain the same for decades to come.

 

[urban]

Kevin is right, the importance of records changes with time. With ever new stats emerging, there a innumerous new 'records'. Even the number of majors won, was prior to the 90s no great thing. When Emerson in 1967 broke Tilden's previous record of 10 majors, nobody cared. Emerson himself wasn't even aware of the fact. What he wanted, was the real Grand Slam. Also Borg never went after Emerson's record, he aimed to win the USO and the Grand Slam. Only when Sampras approached the 12 majors mark, this record became important for the media. Emerson was grateful for this sudden awareness. Besides: 14 is really good, but look on the womens side, there the standard set is clearly higher.

 

[ctbmar]

women's game cannot be compared to men's game. In the 80s & 90s, there are only 2 top women competiting amongst themselves, eg. Narvatilova vs Evert, Graf vs Seles (stabbed). At least the modern women's game is getting to have better depth where the fourth round or quarters, the competition is closer. But still, all the women's 1st, 2nd, 3rd round and even 4th round matches are easy wins for the top 10 in the women's game.
But for the men's game, even Roddick can lose in the 1st round, many champions were beaten in the early rounds because the depth of men's tennis is greater in 80s, 90s, current game as compared to the women's game. If Federer can win 18 majors when he retires, it is definitely better than 24 majors set by Margaret Court or 22 majors by Steffi Graf.

 

[rhubarb]

Kevin is right, the importance of records changes with time. With ever new stats emerging, there a innumerous new 'records'. Even the number of majors won, was prior to the 90s no great thing. When Emerson in 1967 broke Tilden's previous record of 10 majors, nobody cared. Emerson himself wasn't even aware of the fact. What he wanted, was the real Grand Slam. Also Borg never went after Emerson's record, he aimed to win the USO and the Grand Slam. Only when Sampras approached the 12 majors mark, this record became important for the media. Emerson was grateful for this sudden awareness. Besides: 14 is really good, but look on the womens side, there the standard set is clearly higher.

Yes, I agree. Another record that came to light in the last 10 years or so was the "year-end number one", as Sampras was building up to his sixth. I can't recall the year-end ranking even being mentioned twenty years ago; what was important was winning slams, the Masters at MSG, and just being number one the longest.

 

[ctbmar]

Kevin is right, the importance of records changes with time. With ever new stats emerging, there a innumerous new 'records'. Even the number of majors won, was prior to the 90s no great thing. When Emerson in 1967 broke Tilden's previous record of 10 majors, nobody cared. Emerson himself wasn't even aware of the fact. What he wanted, was the real Grand Slam. Also Borg never went after Emerson's record, he aimed to win the USO and the Grand Slam. Only when Sampras approached the 12 majors mark, this record became important for the media. Emerson was grateful for this sudden awareness. Besides: 14 is really good, but look on the womens side, there the standard set is clearly higher.

So to satisfy the criteria that Federer is the greatest tennis player acclaimed by old generation players to today's modern players to future potential players, he must satisfy these below standards:

Please amend if you think my order of importance is not right.
Earnings is excluded as it is not a fair comparison because prize money will increase every year.
Rank 1 is the most important...

Rank 1 :No. of Golden Grandslams in the modern era (winning all 4 majors &
Olympics in a calender year)

Rank 2 :No. of Grandslams in the modern era (winning all 4 majors in a
calender year)

Rank 3 :Winning a record number of majors, surpassing Sampras' mark of 14.

Rank 4 :Winning 4 majors consecutively, but not in a calender year.

Rank 5: No. of consecutive weeks as No. 1.

Rank 6 :Ranked no. 1 for a record number of years/ATP player of the year,
surpassing Sampras' mark of 6 years as no. 1 & ATP player of the year.

Rank 7 :Winning a Golden Career Slam (winning all 4 majors & Olympics in
different years).

Rank 8 :Winning a Career Slam (winning all 4 majors in different years).

Rank 9 :Winning 3 majors in a calender year.

Rank 10 : No. of year-ending Masters events (70s, 80s, 90s)
or Masters Cups (2000s)

Rank 11: No. of career singles titles.

Rank 12 :Winning 3 majors consecutively, but not in a calender year.

Rank 13: No. of Masters Shields.

Rank 14: No. of career wins / matches won.

Rank 15: Longest winning streak on a specific surface
(eg. clay/grass/hard/carpet,etc)

Rank 16: No. of consecutive finals won.

Rank 17: No. of consecutive wins against top 10 players.

Rank 18: No. of Davis Cup Championship wins &
win/loss ratio in davis cup singles matches

Rank 19: No. of Olympic Gold Medals

Rank 20: No. of Doubles Titles

Note: Will update more rankings until get a consensus.

If after Federer's career ends and he achieves all the above Rank 1 to 20, surpassing Sampras in all categories, people from the old school thinking of Grandslam is the ultimate criteria and people from the modern school thinking inclusive of other criterias should regard Federer as the greatest player of all time...But knowing people, even if Federer breaks all these criterias and records, some people will still disregard him as the greatest of all time.

 

[urban]

If he only wins RG, it would be a great step for him. If he is really so good, why not to try the Grand Slam bid.

 

[rhubarb]

Add: number of consecutive weeks at number one.

Demote: year-ends at number one; it may be a good achievement, but consecutive weeks is more significant, in my opinion

Modify: Davis Cup - only rate the player's record, and not how their team has done as a whole, as this depends on team-mates and thus is not in the player's own control.

Add: doubles titles

 

[joe sch]

2006 FO would be the best possibility
The best possibility for the winner would be Nadal
This is my best guess 9/2005

 

[urban]

I find it a little amusing, all these stats and records. There are a book on all kinds records by Lance Tingay, Tennis-facts and feats. Just for fun: One of the most astounding records is still held by Bill Tilden, who won - i think -6 best of five matches in a row, without losing a - game.