Proof that Federer is not playing clay tune ups in 2018

Sysyphus said:
I could care less, this is completely normal and even encouraged in several other individual sports. XC skiers have no problem ditching certain championship distances if they feel it improves their overall chances in their marquee events. An individual athlete's obligation is first and foremost to make the choices that are the most pragmatic for themselves from a sporting perspective.

Me thinks tennis has a lot of weird prudent notions that don't exist in many other places.

(I also don't think slams should be mandatory – that's the very heart of their prestige: that they get [basically] everyone to play them without them being mandatory.)
Click to expand...
I don't really think tennis compares that well other sports in this regard. Entering suboptimal distances is more like entering singles and doubles.

People still disregard the Aussie Open in the early years until somewhere in the 80s to some extent cause not everyone used to play it. Methinks that there's gonna be a lot of attention at RG to someone who's not there, and I don't think that's a good thing. Maybe I should blame the media for that, I don't know. And as for an athlete's obligation, I think there's an argument that the obligation you mentioned isn't always the case cause there are the Masters 1000s where a large proportion of players is required to play 8 out of 9 a year. And still, if you make a rule then a player still has the liberty to make pragmatic choices for himself in that sporting perspective.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that this a pet peeve of mine. I consider it somewhat irrational myself too. But this kind of thing leads to a lot of what ifs, and that's never all that fun, and I fear where this might lead to, because if you apply this logic to a lot of other events, freaky stuff happens. I'd want to see the best players duking it on a variety of surfaces and if this gets more common it would happen a lot less on RG and maybe even Wimbledon.

And honestly if Federer showed up at RG and totally semi-tanked it, I'd wouldn't care nearly as much.
 
Last edited:
Firstservingman said:
Anyone saying that probably just wants to see him lose. Fed haters hating. Nothing to see there.

As someone who wants to see him not lose, I don't think he should play clay. Fed himself seems to agree.
Click to expand...
Well, at least for myself I’m sure that I’m a big Federer fan, and I want him to play on clay. Also I’m not afraid of him losing but I just want to see him trying what is possible with the new racket and his improved backhand on clay.

If he wins RG (I know it’s a big IF), it would be the biggest possible achievement, and I’m extremely excited about that tournament. Wimbledon won’t get my hyped that much to be honest. He won it last year, and I came to terms with it. It’s not such a big deal for me if he has won it 8 or 9 times. Of course I would be super hyped again if he won RG before...
 
This is certainly proof that Federer does not currently intend to play RG, which is not exactly news.

It's still possible to fit in Madrid then RG quite easily if there is an improbable change of mind.
 
Fed blew a good shot at USO’17 by being greedy. History repeating itself leading into Wimby’18?
 
What's more important?? Some damn chocolate or a grand slam? If he continues playing well and dominating the field, don't see him just shutting down for two months. Makes no sense to do that. He loses all of his momentum and whatever mental edge he has gained.
 
good job, Watson

Red Rick said:
I think every active pro player should play a Grand Slam when able to play and eligible for direct entry. And I also think the Grand Slams and the WTF should be the only mandatory tournaments.
Click to expand...
since he will anyway enter less than 18/19 tourneys into his ranking, you cannot force him to play RG anymore.
he would simply tank in the 1st round.

ChrisRF said:
For those who understand German: Swiss newspaper says that Nike has already shown Roger’s outfit for Roland Garros.

https://www.blick.ch/sport/tennis/a...eugelt-roger-mit-roland-garros-id8071495.html

Maybe a better indicator for what will actually happen than Prince Harry's wedding... :p
Click to expand...
thanks for the info, but nope. even that tabloid sais him playing on clay is only speculation.
->
EloQuent said:
Just means Nike is gonna sell an outfit, not that he's gonna play.
Click to expand...
this

Badabing888 said:
i think it would be better if this year he did prepare better for the Open by skipping Toronto and play Cinci this year just to give him that extra week to prepare post Wimbledon, especially if he does have a summer holiday with his family post Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
after his routine Wimbly final, i guess :p

MasturB said:
He will play Barcelona for sure then.
Click to expand...
lul

ChrisRF said:
Well, at least for myself I’m sure that I’m a big Federer fan, and I want him to play on clay. Also I’m not afraid of him losing but I just want to see him trying what is possible with the new racket and his improved backhand on clay.

If he wins RG (I know it’s a big IF), it would be the biggest possible achievement, and I’m extremely excited about that tournament. Wimbledon won’t get my hyped that much to be honest. He won it last year, and I came to terms with it. It’s not such a big deal for me if he has won it 8 or 9 times. Of course I would be super hyped again if he won RG before...
Click to expand...
and what if he gets HUMILIATED+ANNIHILATED by RAFA in the final??? :eek:
 
van_Loederen said:
and what if he gets HUMILIATED+ANNIHILATED by RAFA in the final??? :eek:
Click to expand...
Then he tried it and lost. So what?

1) He would have reached the final then, which already is a good achievement.

2) He would have beaten Nadal 5 times before, and some of those matches were lopsided. One loss (no matter how big) wouldn’t be the end of the world.

3) Generally, losing a tennis match is not dangerous. It’s not that playing Rafa at RG is something like going into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson.
 
Let's say Fed wins Indian Wells. He would be the undefeated #1 player in the world skipping out on two months of play... It doesn't add up. It's not the same situation as last year. He's healthier, #1, Nadal in question, and undefeated to boot.
 
Red Rick said:
I don't really think tennis compares that well other sports in this regard. Entering suboptimal distances is more like entering singles and doubles.

People still disregard the Aussie Open in the early years until somewhere in the 80s to some extent cause not everyone used to play it. Methinks that there's gonna be a lot of attention at RG to someone who's not there, and I don't think that's a good thing. Maybe I should blame the media for that, I don't know. And as for an athlete's obligation, I think there's an argument that the obligation you mentioned isn't always the case cause there are the Masters 1000s where a large proportion of players is required to play 8 out of 9 a year. And still, if you make a rule then a player still has the liberty to make pragmatic choices for himself in that sporting perspective.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that this a pet peeve of mine. I consider it somewhat irrational myself too. But this kind of thing leads to a lot of what ifs, and that's never all that fun, and I fear where this might lead to, because if you apply this logic to a lot of other events, freaky stuff happens. I'd want to see the best players duking it on a variety of surfaces and if this gets more common it would happen a lot less on RG and maybe even Wimbledon.

And honestly if Federer showed up at RG and totally semi-tanked it, I'd wouldn't care nearly as much.
Click to expand...
Fair
 
ChrisRF said:
Then he tried it and lost. So what?

1) He would have reached the final then, which already is a good achievement.

2) He would have beaten Nadal 5 times before, and some of those matches were lopsided. One loss (no matter how big) wouldn’t be the end of the world.

3) Generally, losing a tennis match is not dangerous. It’s not that playing Rafa at RG is something like going into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson.
Click to expand...

IMO, you're underestimating the effect another loss (or multiple) to Rafa on clay might have on him. Sure, at this point he probably knows in his heart that he can't beat Rafa at RG. He may get over the loss quickly, but what if he doesn't, or more to the point, what if it gives Nadal confidence in future meetings on other surfaces? This has happened many times before in the rivalry and could easily happen again.

I should also mention that I'd be much more disappointed if Federer made the RG and Wimbledon finals and lost both vs if he won one of the events and lost 1st RD in the other. Or in other words I don't think Federer should (and I think he himself knows the following) be playing to make the finals of RG at this point in his career because it's a good result. He's playing right now to actually win events and to do that he should probably maximize his chances at the events he's best at, which means skipping clay entirely.
 
Last edited:
I guess I agree with @Red Rick that fully active players should need an excuse to skip a slam. But I also think that we should be OK with older players on a semi retired schedule.

If you want to make the rules that you only get YE#1 if you play all 4 slams, that could make sense. Would negate Nadal 2013 tho...

Finally, I strongly disagree with everyone saying that Federer shouldn't play because he might lose to Nadal. That's the game, you play to win and sometimes you lose.
 
EloQuent said:
I guess I agree with @Red Rick that fully active players should need an excuse to skip a slam. But I also think that we should be OK with older players on a semi retired schedule.

If you want to make the rules that you only get YE#1 if you play all 4 slams, that could make sense. Would negate Nadal 2013 tho...

Finally, I strongly disagree with everyone saying that Federer shouldn't play because he might lose to Nadal. That's the game, you play to win and sometimes you lose.
Click to expand...

I think what most are saying is Fed should be given the privilege to decide what is best for him.

If he decides to play and loses, no questions asked. If he decides to skip, let us respect that.

But to say he is No 1 and therefore he should play is lame given that the guy is nearly 37 . Guys have picked and chosen events when they are 25-30 and here we are questioning the grandold man of tennis.
 
tennisaddict said:
I think what most are saying is Fed should be given the privilege to decide what is best for him.

If he decides to play and loses, no questions asked. If he decides to skip, let us respect that.

But to say he is No 1 and therefore he should play is lame given that the guy is nearly 37 . Guys have picked and chosen events when they are 25-30 and here we are questioning the grandold man of tennis.
Click to expand...
I don't know if that's true, that players often pick and choose, not for slams. They withdraw with injuries, which is different.

Again, I agree that at his age he can choose to play whenever he wants. But I can see why ppl would not like it if the #1 doesn't play.
 
EloQuent said:
I guess I agree with @Red Rick that fully active players should need an excuse to skip a slam. But I also think that we should be OK with older players on a semi retired schedule.

If you want to make the rules that you only get YE#1 if you play all 4 slams, that could make sense. Would negate Nadal 2013 tho...

Finally, I strongly disagree with everyone saying that Federer shouldn't play because he might lose to Nadal. That's the game, you play to win and sometimes you lose.
Click to expand...

Most people aren't saying that though and if they are it's a secondary reason. The primary reasons for not playing on clay being

1) Why change the winning formula of last year? Or

2) Why potentially tire himself out for his best slam and maybe also risk being injured

Besides that, I think not losing to Nadal on clay could be important from a mental standpoint from the perspective of both Nadal and Federer. A loss or two to Nadal on clay could have repercussions on the other surfaces, and not necessarily because Federer might let it get to him, but because Nadal could feed on it.
 
jEGn4Sf
Im(moral) Winner said:
Istanbul it is then.
6441636-3x4-340x453.jpg
Click to expand...
Love Fed, but this is the best cup ever raised in Istanbul.
y52YtZO.jpg

y52YtZO
 
Last edited:
duaneeo said:
How you figure?
Click to expand...
A truckload of posters on TTW, myself included (shameless plug) strongly argued Fed should take time off the tour following his Wimby'17 run. The idea being that 1) his skipping the clay season had payed off as intended and he showed up healthy and fresh to win Wimby and 2) the only thing that mattered for him for the rest of the year was winning USO'17. If he was smart he'd have done the exact same thing he did in the lead up to Wimby. Safely train, rest, stay healthy, care of his ancient body, take no risks, play 1 warmup on HC (Cincy) and go for USO'17.

Instead he askewed all that logic and chased that Canadian title, got injured and limped to USO as a nonfactor.

COULD Fed have been injured anyway in practice or at a Cincy warm up? Of course! But nothing matters for Fed's legacy except slams. YOu have to play the ODDS and make the choices that give u the best chance to win slams considering your age and physical limits. He did not cause he wanted to add that last Canadian masters. No one is gonna remember that he won or lost in Canada. He was in Rafa's head. He would have been the fav to win the USO had he played it smart SHORT OF a freak training injury. I know they can happen anywhere, any time (bathtub) but you're WAY more likely to get injured playing a tourney after you just had a deep slam run than safely training and practicing in your comfort zone.
 
Last edited:
FedFosterWallace said:
Well done on the edit. Maybe a moment’s thought before posting next time. ;)

Folks can enjoy your original effort in the quote. Toodles!
Click to expand...
Its just funny that you literally have no argument to refute the point made in the post. A point thats not even anti-Fed but you STILL got ur jimmies all rustled
 
The last time somebody won a slam without tuneup, the guy went on to win it playing two 5-setters in a row. And added two more slams. I think Federer can take a positive motivation from that and replicate it. Warm up is for dummies.
 
BeatlesFan said:
1. He will be in Malawi for his Foundation from April 11-April 16, which is when Monte Carlo is played. So Monte Carlo is out.
2. He will be in Zurich on May 7-8 for a Lindt chocolate commercial shoot. This is when Madrid is played, so Madrid is out.
3. He will be attending Prince Harry's wedding in England on May 19 which is when the Rome semis are played. So Rome is out.
Click to expand...
WTF? What an interesting amount of speculations but I seriously doubt your information ;)
 
I'd like him to play the FO I'd like all physically able players to play the Majors and Masters. I can see Federer playing FO or Rome before his scheduled retirement. I never liked the years of missing Majors, though AO in 70s to late 80s is reasonable and resulted in change that might not have happened. Though you could say the opposite about Wimbledon.
 
EloQuent said:
I guess I agree with @Red Rick that fully active players should need an excuse to skip a slam. But I also think that we should be OK with older players on a semi retired schedule.

If you want to make the rules that you only get YE#1 if you play all 4 slams, that could make sense. Would negate Nadal 2013 tho...

Finally, I strongly disagree with everyone saying that Federer shouldn't play because he might lose to Nadal. That's the game, you play to win and sometimes you lose.
Click to expand...
No I don't really have a problem with Federer reaching #1 on a limited schedule

And you're right, if this becomes a regular thing I'd rather they'd regulate this like the Masters and say that if you meet certain requirements, you can drop a Slam when fit. However this would give those players a distinct advantage, especially at Wimbledon, and I'm not sure that's what you'd want.

I'm just very afraid that this will set a trend where a lot of players will do this, especially players who are likely to go very deep in both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Especially if players figure out they need to do this too to be in the mix for the win at Wimbledon, it's not gonna get pretty

I mean why the **** would Andy Murray ever enter Roland Garros? Why would anyone with a shot at Wimbledon enter Roland Garros in 2008. Rafael Nadal is there.

Why would a dude like Safin ever bother with Wimbledon
 
Red Rick said:
No I don't really have a problem with Federer reaching #1 on a limited schedule

And you're right, if this becomes a regular thing I'd rather they'd regulate this like the Masters and say that if you meet certain requirements, you can drop a Slam when fit. However this would give those players a distinct advantage, especially at Wimbledon, and I'm not sure that's what you'd want.

I'm just very afraid that this will set a trend where a lot of players will do this, especially players who are likely to go very deep in both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Especially if players figure out they need to do this too to be in the mix for the win at Wimbledon, it's not gonna get pretty

I mean why the **** would Andy Murray ever enter Roland Garros? Why would anyone with a shot at Wimbledon enter Roland Garros in 2008. Rafael Nadal is there.

Why would a dude like Safin ever bother with Wimbledon
Click to expand...

Wimbledon survived the boycott of top CC players of yesteryear (Muster, Bruguera, Guga etc,) because of the surface/seeding, I'm sure FO will do the same regardless if a 36-37 year old who holds the record for consecutive slam appereances (60+) decides to give it a pass in the last few years of his career.

Regarding 2008 Nadal, he wasn't nearly as dominant in masters as he was at the FO that year so no one could have predicted him GOATing there.

Regarding Murray, he did skip FO the first year in which he ended up winning Wimbledon (2013). I remember reading articles at the time how he was already practicing on grass while FO was underway. No one gave a crap.

Few exceptions aside, too many top players today have a shot on every surface for FO/any slam skipping to become the norm. I doubt anyone's gonna have a stranglehold on FO (or any slam for that matter) once the big 3 are done and dusted.
 
Gary Duane said:
I think it's far worse to show up and tank than to skip entirely. The present setup of the tour even encourages tanking.
Click to expand...
sampras2.jpg
Yeah, Fed should skip it thus giving a seed to some mug so they could get his prize money and points. Fed will get his Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award for this noble act. Everyone's a winner.
 
Steve0904 said:
IMO, you're underestimating the effect another loss (or multiple) to Rafa on clay might have on him. Sure, at this point he probably knows in his heart that he can't beat Rafa at RG. He may get over the loss quickly, but what if he doesn't, or more to the point, what if it gives Nadal confidence in future meetings on other surfaces? This has happened many times before in the rivalry and could easily happen again.
Click to expand...
I think he beats Rafa outside clay now because of the new racquet he got used to (and because Rafa isn’t able to retrieve anything off clay anymore). He definitely also had mental blockades against Rafa in the past, but under the new circumstances one loss on clay wouldn’t make a difference for other surfaces. At least I strongly believe that. And just imagine what he could gain from a win on clay in contrast. That would bury Rafa’s confidence against him for good (and Rafa is a confidence player).

Steve0904 said:
I should also mention that I'd be much more disappointed if Federer made the RG and Wimbledon finals and lost both vs if he won one of the events and lost 1st RD in the other. Or in other words I don't think Federer should (and I think he himself knows the following) be playing to make the finals of RG at this point in his career because it's a good result.
Click to expand...
No, he should play to win! I never said otherwise, but IF it is “only” a final then, it would still be a good result. Of course he shouldn’t already be pleased about it before.

Steve0904 said:
He's playing right now to actually win events and to do that he should probably maximize his chances at the events he's best at, which means skipping clay entirely.
Click to expand...
But you cannot plan something like “If I go to the RG final, then I’ll also lose at Wimbledon because I’m too exhausted, so I’ll rather skip clay.” That doesn’t work, even if so many people think that was the reason last year. No, he can win at both or lose at both, so he better should give himself two chances. That’s all.

PS: Also as a fan I just cannot forget the CYGS chance (call me stupid or not)... :cool:
 
BeatlesFan said:
3. He will be attending Prince Harry's wedding in England on May 19 which is when the Rome semis are played. So Rome is out.

Fed also said in Rotterdam, "It wouldn't be prudent to play RG without a proper tune up, possibly two."

Those who fantasize, suggest or even demand Federer play clay should address these "scheduling conflicts." ;)
Click to expand...
That's why i declined Prince Harry's invitation and booked for the Madrid Open instead where I will see the King of Clay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Another Federer streak could end in Madrid
Replies
2
Views
922
Deleted member 77403
D
BeatlesFan
It's official: Federer will not play Madrid or Rome
2
Replies
99
Views
8K
Meles
Meles
T
Nadal should cut his schedule for the clay season
Replies
37
Views
2K
El_Yotamo
El_Yotamo
Sudacafan
Clay season points to be defended - #1 perspectives
Replies
1
Views
737
Zhilady
Zhilady
TripleATeam
  • Poll Poll
More 2022 clay wins - Nadal or Djokovic?
Replies
19
Views
987
Rattie
Rattie
Back
Top