What if Federer had pulled a Sampras and retired at end of 2012?

[abmk]

‘17 Federer wins Wimbledon even if the entire field is healthy. Much likelier that Nadal is thwarted at the USO if either Fed or Djoko are healthy that year.

And Djokovic was healthy in AO 17 anyways. Just got upset by Istomin.

 

[SonnyT]

Sampras was injury prone at his retirement at 31. Federer became injury prone at his retirement at 41; his success at '19 Wim hinged on 2 MP's. Most people would've bet on his success.

Djokovic was far from healthy at '17 AO. He had the surgery on his ailing elbow after '18 AO, and won '18 Wim.

 

[abmk]

I don’t think matters much. From 2013-2019 on he didn’t really win much anyways. 2017 nonwithstanding (and that was mainly due to djokovic injuries that year). He never would have won a slam that year if djoker was healthy

Nadal and djokovic are just better players than he is. Nothing wrong with that though. Not many players in history are. If any

Nadal and djokovic would have kept dominating because they are battling each other for GOAT supremacy and want it more than anyone else

Djoko was healthy in AO 17.
Just got beat by Istomin.
Fed beat Nadal, Wawa, nishi and Berdych.

Fed would have won Wim 17 regardless. Djoko was upset in Wim 16 and his form in Wim 18 was worse than fed's in Wim 17.

Leaving us with AO 18. Considering the number of weak slams both Djoko Nadal have won in this inflation era, this is nothing

 

[foodsamplings]

Djoko was healthy in AO 17.
Just got beat by Istomin.
Fed beat Nadal, Wawa, nishi and Berdych.

Fed would have won Wim 17 regardless. Djoko was upset in Wim 16 and his form in Wim 18 was worse than fed's in Wim 17.

Leaving us with AO 18. Considering the number of weak slams both Djoko Nadal have won in this inflation era, this is nothing

The 2017 Australian Open was one of my favorite events in recent memory, and would have been regardless of the winner. So many great matches where both players were playing well: Federer-Nadal, Dmitrov-Nadal, Wawrinka-Federer, Nishikori-Federer, and numerous others. And many matches the seeming likely winner changed numerous times until the end.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

There's a few things here--firstly, Sampras was DONE by mid 2002 (the loss to Bastl at Wimby is what everyone points to, but even besides that...he was not at the level he was even in 2000), and you could clearly see it. Fed's level in 2012 was very high. He was easily a top-3 player and a cut above the rest of the Tour (along with his fellow Big 4 members)

Also, when it comes to Nadal-Fed rivalry, I will never understand what fans want. Nadal was up 23-10 H2H (with SEVERAL close matches in that span), then Fed lifts his game and wins 6 of the last 7. Now folks rush to say "well after 2015, Nadal is 1-6 against Fed!" or "Fed dominated Nadal after so and so year". Do y'all not get what a RIVALRY is?? It has ebbs and flows, with one player getting the best of the match outcomes for a stretch, then the other....and most of the matches are nail biting thrillers. Nadal and Fed brought the best out of each other, which all GREAT rivals do. Fans salivate too much over H2H statistics...can't we just enjoy their battles and how they each upped each other's games, instead of trying to cherry pick certain chunks of years to say one "dominated" the other??

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic had a bum elbow from '16 Wim to '18 AO. He had to wear the long sleeve on his right arm, remember.

Djokovic defeated Federer, Nadal, Murray

Djoko was healthy in AO 17.
Just got beat by Istomin.
Fed beat Nadal, Wawa, nishi and Berdych.

Fed would have won Wim 17 regardless. Djoko was upset in Wim 16 and his form in Wim 18 was worse than fed's in Wim 17.

Leaving us with AO 18. Considering the number of weak slams both Djoko Nadal have won in this inflation era, this is nothing

Djoker had his arm surrounded by that long sleeve in '17-18 AO, don't you remember?

Fed beat Nadal! At AO, beating Djoker and Nadal are 2 completely different things!

Since '18, Djoker has been more dominant at both AO and Wim than Nadal at RG. Djoker won all AO and Wim that he was allowed to play, whereas Nadal lost to Djokovic at '21 RG!

 

[abmk]

Djokovic had a bum elbow from '16 Wim to '18 AO. He had to wear the long sleeve on his right arm, remember.

Djokovic defeated Federer, Nadal, Murray

Djoker had his arm surrounded by that long sleeve in '17-18 AO, don't you remember?

Fed beat Nadal! At AO, beating Djoker and Nadal are 2 completely different things!

Since '18, Djoker has been more dominant at both AO and Wim than Nadal at RG. Djoker won all AO and Wim that he was allowed to play, whereas Nadal lost to Djokovic at '21 AO!

no, he didn't.

Djokovic had just beaten Murray in a good quality Doha final before AO 17. They were the 2 favorites for the AO.

Go refresh yourself. No long sleeve:

Djokovic did have significant injuries from mid-2017 to couple of months in 2018 including vs Chung at AO, but not in AO 17.

Not just nadal, fed also beat Wawa. Remember, the same Wawa who was Djokovic's nemesis in slams from 14-19 going 4-1 vs him in slams in that period.

Fed's AO 17 of Nadal, Wawa, Nishi, Berdych is like a gazillion times tougher than Djokovic's AO draws from 19-21.
If djokovic faced fed in the form that he displayed vs Istomin, he's going to lose.

the last statement is not relevant to what I am saying (not that its necessarily true)

 

[SonnyT]

no, he didn't.

Djokovic had just beaten Murray in a good quality Doha final before AO 17. They were the 2 favorites for the AO.

Go refresh yourself. No long sleeve:

Djokovic did have significant injuries from mid-2017 to couple of months in 2018 including vs Chung at AO, but not in AO 17.

Not just nadal, fed also beat Wawa. Remember, the same Wawa who was Djokovic's nemesis in slams from 14-19 going 4-1 vs him in slams in that period.

Fed's AO 17 of Nadal, Wawa, Nishi, Berdych is like a gazillion times tougher than Djokovic's AO draws from 19-21.
If djokovic faced fed in the form that he displayed vs Istomin, he's going to lose.

the last statement is not relevant to what I am saying (not that its necessarily true)

Djoker's injury started at '16 Wim (lost to Querrey), and ended at '18 Wim. Fed's '17 AO was tough, but it didn't have a healthy Djokovic, that made all the difference, because he was insurmountable to Fed!

Djoker didn't have an injury in '17, because the damage was done in '16!

 

[abmk]

Djoker's injury started at '16 Wim (lost to Querrey), and ended at '18 Wim. Fed's '17 AO was tough, but it didn't have a healthy Djokovic, that made all the difference, because he was insurmountable to Fed!

Djoker didn't have an injury in '17, because the damage was done in '16!

Wrong. Djoko's injury started around mid-17. Deal with it.
Stop making sorry, rubbish excuses for him having a dip and getting beaten big time by Wawa in USO 16, Istomin in AO 17, Thiem in RG 17 etc.

LMAO. Djokovic got upset by Istomin, but is insurmountable to Fed who thrashed Berdych and beat in-form Nadal, Wawa and Nishi

 

[helterskelter]

Djoko was healthy in AO 17.
Just got beat by Istomin.
Fed beat Nadal, Wawa, nishi and Berdych.

Fed would have won Wim 17 regardless. Djoko was upset in Wim 16 and his form in Wim 18 was worse than fed's in Wim 17.

Leaving us with AO 18. Considering the number of weak slams both Djoko Nadal have won in this inflation era, this is nothing

I don't dispute your reasoning, but I do have a question. I'd have thought you'd think all of their slams since 2017 apart from Nadal at RG 2017 and perhaps at RG 2020 are weak slams not because the field was incomplete but because the field was poor and so the winner didn't really have to display a very high level. From that point of view, wouldn't Federer's AO + WI 2017 have been also won in a relatively poor field? (Note, by the way, that I think Federer's draw at AO 2017 was actually quite a strong draw, so I'm not endorsing this line of questioning myself, but I wonder to what extent you buy it).

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Metsman is a Sampras fan but seems to believe Roger is better and posts in praise of Roger over and over while comparatively little for Pete. Does that make him not a Pete fan?

metsman praises Pete a lot. It's just that he comes a bit less in the big 3 fan wars.

 

[abmk]

I don't dispute your reasoning, but I do have a question. I'd have thought you'd think all of their slams since 2017 apart from Nadal at RG 2017 and perhaps at RG 2020 are weak slams not because the field was incomplete but because the field was poor and so the winner didn't really have to display a very high level. From that point of view, wouldn't Federer's AO + WI 2017 have been also won in a relatively poor field? (Note, by the way, that I think Federer's draw at AO 2017 was actually quite a strong draw, so I'm not endorsing this line of questioning myself, but I wonder to what extent you buy it).

I'm not sure what exactly you mean.

Anyways my primary focus was on inflation slams aka - not good enough field+not good enough form
That'd be like: AO 18 for fed, USO 17/USO 19/AO 22 and arguably RG 22 for Nadal, Wim 19/AO 20/AO 21/Wim 21/Wim 22 for Djoko.

not so much where the player played well enough even with not good enough fields - Wim 17 for fed, RG 17-20 for Nadal, USO 18/AO 19 for djoko to give the examples.

 

[helterskelter]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean.

Anyways my primary focus was on inflation slams aka - not good enough field+not good enough form
That'd be like: AO 18 for fed, USO 17/USO 19/AO 22 and arguably RG 22 for Nadal, Wim 19/AO 20/AO 21/Wim 21/Wim 22 for Djoko.

not so much where the player played well enough even with not good enough fields - Wim 17 for fed, RG 17-20 for Nadal, USO 18/AO 19 for djoko to give the examples.

I think you got my question! Okay, fair enough for both to be needed for it to count as a weak slam. (I guess, logically, there's the possibility of a slam won with not great form in a fairly good field, but that would obviously be very rare. One example might be Edberg at the US Open 1992, where he wasn't playing anything like as well as a year previously, and so had to go to five sets in three straight matches).

I take it you agree with me that Federer actually had a pretty tough draw at AO 2017?

 

[abmk]

I think you got my question! Okay, fair enough for both to be needed for it to count as a weak slam. (I guess, logically, there's the possibility of a slam won with not great form in a fairly good field, but that would obviously be very rare. One example might be Edberg at the US Open 1992, where he wasn't playing anything like as well as a year previously, and so had to go to five sets in three straight matches).

I take it you agree with me that Federer actually had a pretty tough draw at AO 2017?

well, I'd say both needed for it to be counted as an inflation slam.

You can have weak strength slam even with winner playing very well, but wouldn't call that inflation since atleast winner was playing very well.
Federer's AO 17 draw was tough, but definitely not among the toughest if we look historically. If we look at age, then very tough. If we look at the era that is 16-22, its a diamond.

Edberg's 92 USO form was still more than good enough, even if not comparable to his USO 91 form.
We'd be looking more at an example like Djoko RG 21 for not so great form in a fairly good draw.

 

[Herald]

metsman praises Pete a lot. It's just that he comes a bit less in the big 3 fan wars.

I know he praises PETE but I don't think I've seen him ever argue for Pete over Roger, and that's fine. I respect him for it. I don't want to get into a discussion about another poster, my point is that being a fan of a player doesn't mean you have to think that they're GOAT, or argue that they are.

 

[helterskelter]

well, I'd say both needed for it to be counted as an inflation slam.

You can have weak strength slam even with winner playing very well, but wouldn't call that inflation since atleast winner was playing very well.
Federer's AO 17 draw was tough, but definitely not among the toughest if we look historically. If we look at age, then very tough. If we look at the era that is 16-22, its a diamond.

Edberg's 92 USO form was still more than good enough, even if not comparable to his USO 91 form.
We'd be looking more at an example like Djoko RG 21 for not so great form in a fairly good draw.

AO 2017 not among the toughest but I think more on the tough side than on the weak side.

Edberg had his moments at US Open 92 - e.g. the first two sets against Lendl, the conclusion against Lendl on the Friday after the rain delay the previous night, and obviously the final - but he did have quite a few dips (as usual). Should probably have got it done against Krajicek, Lendl, and Chang in four sets or fewer. Let slip good opportunities in set 2 v Krajicek, set 4 v Lendl, and both sets he lost against Chang.

Even in 91, he was arguably a point away from going out in round 1 against Ben Shelton's dad! It was 6-4 2-6 4-5 0-40 and had he dropped that set, who knows what would have happened? He came in on terrible form - quite the reverse of the previous year (1990), when he came in unbeaten since Queen's and lost in straight sets in round 1 to Alexander Volkov. It still bugs me that he played Long Island the week before the US Open that year. I'm pretty sure he'd have made the final otherwise.

 

[TheRed]

There's a few things here--firstly, Sampras was DONE by mid 2002 (the loss to Bastl at Wimby is what everyone points to, but even besides that...he was not at the level he was even in 2000), and you could clearly see it. Fed's level in 2012 was very high. He was easily a top-3 player and a cut above the rest of the Tour (along with his fellow Big 4 members)

Also, when it comes to Nadal-Fed rivalry, I will never understand what fans want. Nadal was up 23-10 H2H (with SEVERAL close matches in that span), then Fed lifts his game and wins 6 of the last 7. Now folks rush to say "well after 2015, Nadal is 1-6 against Fed!" or "Fed dominated Nadal after so and so year". Do y'all not get what a RIVALRY is?? It has ebbs and flows, with one player getting the best of the match outcomes for a stretch, then the other....and most of the matches are nail biting thrillers. Nadal and Fed brought the best out of each other, which all GREAT rivals do. Fans salivate too much over H2H statistics...can't we just enjoy their battles and how they each upped each other's games, instead of trying to cherry pick certain chunks of years to say one "dominated" the other??

As someone who got into tennis during the Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang era, it seems to me that Sampras and Fed are really 2 very different tennis players. Sampras was a very good athlete and was ultra competitive and liked to win and be the best. You can tell even in interviews that he relished beating an opponent and being the alpha dog. He never came off as someone who just really really liked being out on the tennis court hitting balls. He liked being on the tennis court beating people. Once he got the record of slams, it was hard for him to stay motivated. He was already debated as the greatest and the grand slam record proved it.
But Fed is different. His creativity, variety and many other factors show that he really likes playing tennis. He of course is also a very good athlete and very competitive but he also loved tennis. I'm not sure Sampras was the same.

 

[SonnyT]

Wrong. Djoko's injury started around mid-17. Deal with it.
Stop making sorry, rubbish excuses for him having a dip and getting beaten big time by Wawa in USO 16, Istomin in AAO 17, Thiem in RG 17 etc.

LMAO. Djokovic got upset by Istomin, but is insurmountable to Fed who thrashed Berdych and beat in-form Nadal, Wawa and Nishi

Istomin and Chung at AO managed to beat a healthy Djokovic, something that Fed and Nadal failed to do countless times! A healthy Djokovic has been undefeated since '19! What a joke!

Querrey and Berdych at Wim managed to beat a healthy Djokovic, something that Fed and Nadal failed to do countless times! A healthy Djokovic has been undefeated since '18!

 

[Rosstour]

As someone who got into tennis during the Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang era, it seems to me that Sampras and Fed are really 2 very different tennis players. Sampras was a very good athlete and was ultra competitive and liked to win and be the best. You can tell even in interviews that he relished beating an opponent and being the alpha dog. He never came off as someone who just really really liked being out on the tennis court hitting balls. He like being on the tennis court beating people. Once he got the record of slams, it was hard for him to stay motivated. He was already debated as the greatest and the grand slam record proved it.
But Fed is different. His creativity, variety and many other factors show that he really likes playing tennis. He of course is also a very good athlete and very competitive but he also loved tennis. I'm not sure Sampras was the same.

Sampras has shown us how much he loves tennis in retirement

There's a few things here--firstly, Sampras was DONE by mid 2002 (the loss to Bastl at Wimby is what everyone points to, but even besides that...he was not at the level he was even in 2000), and you could clearly see it. Fed's level in 2012 was very high. He was easily a top-3 player and a cut above the rest of the Tour (along with his fellow Big 4 members)

Also, when it comes to Nadal-Fed rivalry, I will never understand what fans want. Nadal was up 23-10 H2H (with SEVERAL close matches in that span), then Fed lifts his game and wins 6 of the last 7. Now folks rush to say "well after 2015, Nadal is 1-6 against Fed!" or "Fed dominated Nadal after so and so year". Do y'all not get what a RIVALRY is?? It has ebbs and flows, with one player getting the best of the match outcomes for a stretch, then the other....and most of the matches are nail biting thrillers. Nadal and Fed brought the best out of each other, which all GREAT rivals do. Fans salivate too much over H2H statistics...can't we just enjoy their battles and how they each upped each other's games, instead of trying to cherry pick certain chunks of years to say one "dominated" the other??

Facts are facts. Nadal dominated Roger in certain years. Then Fed clawed back and responded in kind from 2015 on.

Nadal and Djok fans love to talk about how Fed has been dominated by both players for all time, but it isn't really like that.

 

[SonnyT]

Federer was 6-1 against Nadal, Nadal's lone win came at RG! That wasn't ebb and flow, that was utter domination!

Fed came with a new BH!

 

[abmk]

Istomin and Chung at AO managed to beat a healthy Djokovic, something that Fed and Nadal failed to do countless times! A healthy Djokovic has been undefeated since '19! What a joke!

Querrey and Berdych at Wim managed to beat a healthy Djokovic, something that Fed and Nadal failed to do countless times! A healthy Djokovic has been undefeated since '18!

wrong on so many counts.
1. Fed beat healthy Djokovic at AO in 07.
2. Didn't say Djokovic was healthy in AO 18. but injury issues only affected his serving. otherwise, he was playing well enough off the ground/on the return. However Djokovic was healthy in AO 17 when he got upset by Istomin.
3. Querrey did beat healthy Djokovic in Wim 16. Berdych did beat healthy Djokovic in Wim 10. But Djoko did retire from injury at Wim 17 vs Berdych.
4. Past prime fed whopped prime Djokovic at Wim in 12 - or are you selectively chosing to forget? Nadal beat Djoko in Wim 07.

 

[SonnyT]

No, the elbow started acting up right after '16 RG. I remember distinctly ESPN speculated whether Djoker had elbow problems, because his serve speeds were down! People speculated whether that was a turning point for Querrey. No, because Querrey beat an ailing Djokovic. These was no way Murray could've beat a healthy Djoker in '16 to get to No 1!

Before at Wim '16, Djoker beat Federer and Nadal. In '16-17, he lost to Querrey and Berdych. After '18, he again beat Federer and Nadal, and hasn't lost since. Clearly, he was injured in '16-17!

Djoker was sub par in '12-14, each year he won only 1 slam. That was why he brought in Becker! That period was sandwiched between 3-slam years of '11 and '15. I don't count anything that happened before '11.

 

[Mustard]

Almost every player has niggling injuries when they're playing tennis matches. Very few are 100% pain free when they play. When you start a tennis match, you say that you are fit to play, and the result will be what it is.

 

[SonnyT]

It wasn't a nagging injury. It was a serious one that Djoker picked up sometime after '16 RG, and required surgery after '18 AO!

 

[Mustard]

It wasn't a nagging injury. It was a serious one that Djoker picked up sometime after '16 RG, and required surgery after '18 AO!

It became serious by mid 2017, hence why his tennis year was over after Wimbledon.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Y'all are nothing if not predictable...and BORING. Y'all love taking certain chunks of years of a rivalry, and going to the furthest possible over-simplification/overdramatic narrative of it...just to prove a player you don't like was "dominated".

Rafa/Roger played 7 times from 2015-2019, with 6 of those 7 times coming in 2017 and 2019 (with 4 in 2017 alone). Roger got the best of Rafa in their 2017 matchups, and they split the 2019 ones. And Roger had to stage an amazing 5th set comeback to beat Rafa at the AO 2017 Final. Their rivalry was more than just their final 7 meetups, and facing someone 7 times over 5 years isn't the largest sample size either. They bought the best out of each other. But please, don't let actual critical thought and my giving both players credit for raising each other's level...stop the incessant trolling for Fed (just like the Fed Fanatics around here were doing in 2010-2011 when I first got on this board)

 

[abmk]

No, the elbow started acting up right after '16 RG. I remember distinctly ESPN speculated whether Djoker had elbow problems, because his serve speeds were down! People speculated whether that was a turning point for Querrey. No, because Querrey beat an ailing Djokovic. These was no way Murray could've beat a healthy Djoker in '16 to get to No 1!

Before at Wim '16, Djoker beat Federer and Nadal. In '16-17, he lost to Querrey and Berdych. After '18, he again beat Federer and Nadal, and hasn't lost since. Clearly, he was injured in '16-17!

Djoker was sub par in '12-14, each year he won only 1 slam. That was why he brought in Becker! That period was sandwiched between 3-slam years of '11 and '15. I don't count anything that happened before '11.

Querrey beat a healthy Djokovic in Wim 16. Djokovic had a dip after RG 16 because he was exiting his prime and that's what happens.
Your excuses are beyond lame.
LOL @ not counting anything that happened before 11. Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Djokovic in 12-14 >> djokovic 18-current. Just got immensely lucky with inflation era. The most luckiest player.

12 is Djokovic's 3rd best year level wise after 11 and 15.

 

[SonnyT]

'12-14 Djokovic won just one slam each year, and he had to bring in Becker, how could that be his best years? How about '16, '18 and '19 when he won double slams! In '16 Wim, I remember ESPN speculating whether Djoker had elbow injury because his 1st serve speed went way down! In '16-18, he went slam-dry for 24 months; after '18 surgery, he started winning AO and Wim again, and hasn't stopped. Coincidentally, Federer took advantage of his tough stretch, and won his last 3 slams.

In '18 at Wim, and in '21 at RG, he beat Nadal. In '19 at Wim, he beat Federer. It wasn't his fault Federer had to retire, and Nadal ran scared of him at AO and Wim. But all metrics already show his superiority to main rivals.

 

[RS]

Querrey beat a healthy Djokovic in Wim 16. Djokovic had a dip after RG 16 because he was exiting his prime and that's what happens.
Your excuses are beyond lame.
LOL @ not counting anything that happened before 11. Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Djokovic in 12-14 >> djokovic 18-current. Just got immensely lucky with inflation era. The most luckiest player.

12 is Djokovic's 3rd best year level wise after 11 and 15.

08/12-14 Djokovic in 2018/2019/2021/2022 how many slams does he win?

 

[Garro]

Nobody hates Roger, Ross, calm down my friend. The weakness in his career had he retired in 2012 after Wimbledon would have been a 10-18 record against his rival who was taken out by someone else which would raise serious questions and perhaps even make that win an asterisk slam. He made the right decision to keep playing. By doing so he delayed his being surpassed a few years and showed he could beat Rafa in big matches. Total win.

Lol? Rog beat Murray and defending champion Djokovic back to back in that slam, the two other highest seeds he could have faced.

He would have had more than a decent shot against Rafa the way he was playing, especially with the roof being closed for the last match and a half of the tournament.

It would make (somewhat) more sense to call 2017 AO an asterisk slam. Because he never really came close to beating Djokovic at the Australian open post 07...whereas he had already beaten Rafa twice at Wimby.

 

[Herald]

Lol? Rog beat Murray and defending champion Djokovic back to back in that slam, the two other highest seeds he could have faced.

He would have had more than a decent shot against Rafa the way he was playing, especially with the roof being closed for the last match and a half of the tournament.

It would make (somewhat) more sense to call 2017 AO an asterisk slam. Because he never really came close to beating Djokovic at the Australian open post 07...whereas he had already beaten Rafa twice at Wimby.

Everyone breathed a collective sigh of relief, including Roger himself when Rafa was knocked out that year. If he'd retired after the win, questions would always he asked about 10-18 and the myth of Avoiderer.

 

[Quaichang]

It would have been so much better for his legacy.

Three slam titles less, but much more dignity left.

H2H 16-13 against Djokovic.
No painful losses: IW14, WIM14, YEC14, WI15, Rome15, WIM15, USO15, YEC15, Cinci18, WIM19.
No 40-15 trauma.

Maybe better for his legacy but as a fan I am glad he didn’t.

 

[hoodjem]

What if he pulled a Borg?

 

[Herald]

What if he pulled a Borg?

What if he pulled a Baghdatis?

 

[TheLeadMaster]

It's just starting to sink in for me that he's now a former player and I'll never feel the same excitement (for now) that I feel when I was watching him play. We all should stop festering over these "what if?!" scenarios and just be grateful for being alive to witness the Swiss maestro.

 

[TMF]

Not sure how you can expect anyone to believe you are a fan when you spend this much time arguing that he was a solid 3rd best of his era and that PETE was also way better

Pseudo fed fan who can't even disguise himself properly

 

[TheLeadMaster]

Roger would've won more than one RG title if he made the switch to Yonex.

 

[PK6]

Federer was idiot and stupid-should’ve tried to win French open when he made quarterfinals instead focusing on trying to win Wimbledon/a grand slam is a grand slam! Does it matter what slam he wins??? If you make that far no matter the slam what difference does it make?