Why Roger Federer should make winning another French Open his priority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 756486
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
TWENTY career majors. Oldest and longest-reigning No.1 in history. $US115 million in prize money and counting.
Roger Federer could retire today a very, very happy man.

His status as an all-time sporting great is assured. Even if he never wins another match, he may go unchallenged as the greatest and most successful male tennis player in history.

With his 37th birthday approaching, however, Federer looks anything but finished. And you get the feeling plenty more incredible records and milestones will fall before he is.

There are the some obvious milestones still out there for Federer to chase.


His triumph in Rotterdam last week was his 97th at ATP level, putting him within touching distance of the magical 100 titles mark (Jimmy Connors holds the record with an astounding 109).

With 20 majors now in the bag he could be realistically setting his sights on Margaret Court’s all-time record of 24, all the while further distancing himself from greatest foe Rafael Nadal (second on the men’s all-time list with 16).

Should his form hold up another 12 months, Federer has a chance next year to surpass Ken Rosewall as tennis’ oldest ever major winner (the Aussie legend won the 1972 Australian Open at the age of 37 years and 62 days).

Then there’s another, more unlikely, achievement in the offing. One that would put the ultimate exclamation mark on his career — and Federer won’t get a better chance than this year to make it happen.

It’s why the Swiss should make winning a second French Open title — thus completing the rare ‘double career slam’ — a priority in 2018.


Since jagging his sole triumph at Roland Garros in 2009 to complete a career slam (winning all four major titles), the event has understandably fallen down his pecking order of importance.

He sat out the entire clay court season in 2017 and it proved a masterstroke, the rest and recuperation proving crucial to what has been a stunning and unexpected run of success on hard and grass courts over the past 12 months.

Most expect Federer will stick to the same plan this year, unsurprising given he’s played a mere five matches on clay since June, 2015. However he’s hinted ever so slightly a Roland Garros return this May might be on the cards.

“The clay season is up in the air,” Federer, who is “50-50” about lining up in next week’s Dubai event, said last month.

“If I’m playing a lot during this part of the season, it would be hard to play a robust clay season.

“It would be light (schedule) if I do play. We’ll see how it goes, I’m healthy and glad to be playing.

“I should be playing when I feel that way and not play when I don’t feel at 100 per cent or don’t feel ready to do it. That’s the secret for me moving forward.”

Embarking on another gruelling French Open campaign present obvious risks to Federer’s other 2018 plans but there are reasons to believe he could mount a legitimate title charge


We tend to forget Federer is among the greatest clay courters of all-time, at least statistically.

He’s one of only three men (along with compatriot Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic) aside from Nadal to win the French Open since 2004. His 11 ATP titles and a 75 per cent winning record across almost 300 matches on the surface put his claycourt figures in legendary territory. And he’s playing and moving as well now as he ever has.

Then there are the ongoing struggles of Federer’s wounded rivals. Ten-time champion Nadal is a deserved odds-on French Open favourite but he continues to struggle with injury, as does Wawrinka (who lost to the world No.259 last week). Djokovic is on a long road back from a serious elbow problem and there are fears we may never see the Andy Murray of old again.

In a year where young guns like Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev might pose the biggest title threats, a fit and firing Federer could be perfectly poised to throw caution to the wind and pounce for perhaps the most unlikely triumph of his career.


With his beloved Wimbledon also approaching and a ninth title in the offing many would fairly ask ‘why bother? when it comes to Roland Garros.

Because winning a second French Open title would make Federer the first man in the Open era to win each of the four majors at least twice (only Australians Rod Laver and Roy Emerson have ever done it).

Because jagging another Roland Garros title during the King of Clay’s reign would represent another savage blow in the Federer v Nadal legacy debate — and surely sting peers Djokovic and French Open-less Murray.

And just because winning a grand slam on your least-favoured surface at 36, against all odds, is a very badass, Roger Federer-like thing to do.

Article by Fox Sports.

NOTE: The authors views on this subject do not align with my own.
 
The article is right. Federer has nothing left to prove but winning Roland Garros again would do more to enhance his legacy than anything else.
 
I really dont like seeing so many articles written telling Federer to/ not to play RG, it just puts unnecessary pressure on him.

The man knows himself, his body and his abilities, I am pretty sure he doesnt need anyone of us to tell him whether he should or should not play a tournament.
 
I really dont like seeing so many articles written telling Federer to/ not to play RG, it just puts unnecessary pressure on him.

The man knows himself, his body and his abilities, I am pretty sure he doesnt need anyone of us to tell him whether he should or should not play a tournament.
Though, I get the article author's point.
While no one can predict the future, this year's RG would be a really good ( and possible last ) chance for Fed, it's an " IF " case, such as if the best present claycourters are not doing good in the clay season because of injuries, it would definitely be something that Fed should consider.

But again, Im sure this is nothing he doesnt know already, so it's a bit pointless in discussing things like this.
 
I really dont like seeing so many articles written telling Federer to/ not to play RG, it just puts unnecessary pressure on him.

The man knows himself, his body and his abilities, I am pretty sure he doesnt need anyone of us to tell him whether he should or should not play a tournament.
Though, I get the article author's point.
While no one can predict the future, this year's RG would be a really good ( and possible last ) chance for Fed, it's an " IF " case, such as if the best present claycourters are not doing good in the clay season because of injuries, it would definitely be something that Fed should consider.

But again, Im sure this is nothing he doesnt know already
 
The only thing I like about this article is the last sentence. It is excellent, well-written, and true.

But... No.
 
The Double Career Grand Slam does not exist..

Rather than calling it the DCGS, refer to it as a player winning all 4 slams at least twice--a feat never accomplished in the Open Era. Where it would rank among accomplishments is a matter of opinion, but still it would be an accomplishment.
 
The article is right. Federer has nothing left to prove but winning Roland Garros again would do more to enhance his legacy than anything else.
I think most tennis fans would agree with you on this, but would it matter if he won it without facing Nadal in the final?

I actually think winning a sixth USO would enhance his legacy far more than a second FO, regardless of who he would play in the final. I think the entire "double grand slam" thing is something mostly existing on tennis chat boards, not in tennis history.
 
The article is right. Federer has nothing left to prove but winning Roland Garros again would do more to enhance his legacy than anything else.
True but in my opinion I’d rather see him win USO again and break Connors/Sampras record.
 
I think winning the 9th Wimbledon trumps everything else. And winning another USO 10 years after he won the last one is extremely special too.
 
I'm getting a hang of how this part of the forum works now:

*Federer should not go for RG*
*why not?*
[lynching, stabbing, mugging, kneecappings]
*Federer should go for RG*
*why?*
[lynching, stabbing, mugging, kneecapping]
*Federer should NOT for for RG*
 
Double slam doesn't mean much to Federer's legacy. Would it be a unique stat? Sure, but he already has a million of those made-up unique stats of his own, like 5x3. 2x4 would just be thrown onto the pile with the rest of mind-boggling accomplishments he has.
 
I think most tennis fans would agree with you on this, but would it matter if he won it without facing Nadal in the final?

I actually think winning a sixth USO would enhance his legacy far more than a second FO, regardless of who he would play in the final. I think the entire "double grand slam" thing is something mostly existing on tennis chat boards, not in tennis history.

Yeah, you could definitely make a case for the US Open. I guess it's context dependent and how he won RG. Subjectively if he beat Nadal in Paris that should mean more. Objectively becoming the sole record holder at the USO probably means more legacy wise.

Although it's quite possible someone comes along and conquers the US Open record and then one would rather have the additional RG.
 
I think most tennis fans would agree with you on this, but would it matter if he won it without facing Nadal in the final?

I actually think winning a sixth USO would enhance his legacy far more than a second FO, regardless of who he would play in the final. I think the entire "double grand slam" thing is something mostly existing on tennis chat boards, not in tennis history. So for me, a sixth USO is much bigger legacy-wise. But it sure is open to debate.
I would also prefer if he cemented his greatest USO champion status. But I can't agree that winning the most physical slam at age 36 wouldn't matter if he didn't beat Rafa. That's an accomplishment in and of itself, no matter who he played. Even if he beat your two favorites to do it, Thiem and Sascha (;)), you'd have to still be impressed.

And do you not count his 2009 win?
 
A Roland Garros title at this point would mean more than any other, but it's not realistic. An Australian or US Open title would give him the all time/open era record, and they both are realistic. Roland Garros literally nullifies his game, and the way that he pretty much has to play at this point to keep on top of everyone. All those scrubs who can't live with him on quicker courts will suddenly like their chances a lot more, it's not just about Nadal.
 
A Roland Garros title at this point would mean more than any other, but it's not realistic. An Australian or US Open title would give him the all time/open era record, and they both are realistic. Roland Garros literally nullifies his game, and the way that he pretty much has to play at this point to keep on top of everyone. All those scrubs who can't live with him on quicker courts will suddenly like their chances a lot more, it's not just about Nadal.

Say it louder for the people at the back!:D
 
A Roland Garros title at this point would mean more than any other, but it's not realistic. An Australian or US Open title would give him the all time/open era record, and they both are realistic. Roland Garros literally nullifies his game, and the way that he pretty much has to play at this point to keep on top of everyone. All those scrubs who can't live with him on quicker courts will suddenly like their chances a lot more, it's not just about Nadal.

Yep. Thanks.
 
Pure madness. This is copy book logic. Even if Nadal couldn't compete, to beat clay journeymen on their specialised surface requires a massive effort even from Federer and takes a huge toll on the body. He has a finite amount of energy left in his body and needs to marshal it carefully. The effort to win 7 rounds on the quicksand of RG would accelerate his (already ludicrously advanced) ageing before our eyes effectively killing off his 2018 and maybe even 2019 seasons. The middle-aged body does not bounce like the body does in the 20s. Compound this with his damaged and knee and it makes the whole project seem self-defeating and wrong headed.

Would I like to see him lift the trophy? Would I like to see him defeat Nadal in his backyard? Sure. But will it make me respect his achievements more. Not at all. It would seem more like an exercise in vanity and overreach with a positively Quixotic tinge. The formula from last season was almost perfection (excluding Montreal - another example of overreach). Don't change a winning formula.
don_quixote_by_nikogeyer-daihrrt.jpg
 
I really dont like seeing so many articles written telling Federer to/ not to play RG, it just puts unnecessary pressure on him.

The man knows himself, his body and his abilities, I am pretty sure he doesnt need anyone of us to tell him whether he should or should not play a tournament.

Yeah I really don't think Federer feels pressure as a result of some sports writer making a case as to why he should or shouldn't play certain Tournament's - Federer does what he knows is in his best interests & what is in keeping with his own priorities.
 
I really dont like seeing so many articles written telling Federer to/ not to play RG, it just puts unnecessary pressure on him.

The man knows himself, his body and his abilities, I am pretty sure he doesnt need anyone of us to tell him whether he should or should not play a tournament.

Yeah I really don't think Federer feels pressure as a result of some sports writer making a case as to why he should or shouldn't play certain Tournament's - Federer does what he knows is in his best interests & what is in keeping with his own priorities.
 
Yeah, you could definitely make a case for the US Open. I guess it's context dependent and how he won RG. Subjectively if he beat Nadal in Paris that should mean more. Objectively becoming the sole record holder at the USO probably means more legacy wise.

Although it's quite possible someone comes along and conquers the US Open record and then one would rather have the additional RG.

I think if he gets 6USO then he has outright Wimb, USO and WTF record. No one has more AO then him either as it stands and only 8 men have more RG titles as it stands. Obviously he already has most slams.

I agree that objectively uso is better. In terms of fan noise and these forums etc if fed got RG even though it means less this forum and fans would be going crazy.
 
I think most tennis fans would agree with you on this, but would it matter if he won it without facing Nadal in the final?

I actually think winning a sixth USO would enhance his legacy far more than a second FO, regardless of who he would play in the final. I think the entire "double grand slam" thing is something mostly existing on tennis chat boards, not in tennis history.

I think a 2nd FO would actually do more for his legacy than a 6th USO title - not because of Double Career Slam or whatever but because it would strengthen his position on all time Clay Court standings & his legacy of being all time great across all surfaces. With 11 Hard Court Slams I don't know if a 12th really adds a lot - sure adds massively if it helps him overtake Court but beyond that I'm not really feeling it.

Of course his stats already support him being highly considered in both instances but inevitably titles are what people remember & first turn to when arguing such a point.
While I think a 2nd FO would be great (& potentially the 1 title that could add most significantly to his legacy at this point in time), I'm also not convinced as to whether it's worth the risk. Clearly being fit for Wimbledon is a priority for Federer & playing long 5 set matches a few weeks before is a big ask.
 
Federer winning another RG > another USO > another AO > another Wimbledon.

That's one way of looking at it.

My preference for Federer is:
another WB > another USO > another AO > another RG

I think in regards to records, the more distance to the 2nd place, the better. They're less likely to get broken. ;)

re: 2x of each GS; Federer getting a 2nd RG, Nadal an 2nd AO, Djokovic a 2nd RG, are all possible. Atm, none of the 3 scenarios will put the record out of reach.

But for Federer...

another WB = the record is great currently, a 9th will make it absurd.

another USO = solo record holder, plus 3 sets of 6GS* (see explanation at bottom)

another AO = solo record holder, cool but Novak could match it later.

another RG = 2x of each GS, it's a cool stat, but 2RG is << 10RG, neither here nor there.

*I understand the line of thought in that 2x of each GS is great, especially since it has not been done before in the open era. But 2x of each GS can be achieved with a minimum of 8 GS won. 6x at 3 different GS (if Federer manages to win a 6th USO) simply cannot be done unless a player wins a minimum of 18 GS. So far, only one man has won 18GS, regardless of the GS mix.

Simple math says winning 18GS is harder than winning 8GS. Yes, winning at least 8GS with the specific of 2x of each GS is very, very difficult. But so is winning at least 18GS while specifically winning 6x of 3 different GS.

Federer already achieved the career grand slam. Obviously I'm not him, but if I could chose, RG would be the least in priority of the 4.

All a matter of opinions I suppose.
It's a fun thought.:)
 
Clay is bad for your knee's, no way should he ever play seriously on it again
 
another USO = solo record holder, plus 3 sets of 6GS* (see explanation at bottom)

another RG = 2x of each GS, it's a cool stat, but 2RG is << 10RG, neither here nor there.

There are countless references to '5X3' in my past posts, so it goes without question that I LOVE the thought of '6X3' (and, it would allow me to change my siggy). ;)

But I do prefer 2X4 because it hasn't been achieved in the OE. And as I once said before, Federer is too great to have a '1' in the win column of a slam.
 
And in opposition to this is the overt concern of how the sliding on clay could cause further damage to Roger's knee, and that's got to be the more compelling consideration.
 
Nothing could be sweeter than this. Deep down we all know it. Its the right time.


images
Some Fed fans disagree. I personally would rather see him win Wimbledon than win another FO. Nine Wimbledons is more legacy defining than one more FO. And he's sure not winning Wimbledon again if he plays or goes deep at the FO.
 
Yeah, you could definitely make a case for the US Open. I guess it's context dependent and how he won RG. Subjectively if he beat Nadal in Paris that should mean more. Objectively becoming the sole record holder at the USO probably means more legacy wise.

Although it's quite possible someone comes along and conquers the US Open record and then one would rather have the additional RG.

What if Federer defeats Nadal at the Paris Masters in October :p ? Does that count?
 
Yeah, you could definitely make a case for the US Open. I guess it's context dependent and how he won RG. Subjectively if he beat Nadal in Paris that should mean more. Objectively becoming the sole record holder at the USO probably means more legacy wise.

Although it's quite possible someone comes along and conquers the US Open record and then one would rather have the additional RG.

What if Federer defeats Nadal at the Paris Masters in October :p ? Does that count What?
 
I would like to know what stopped these Anglo American outlets from asking Sampras to win at least one RG back in the day. He was blithely declared the greatest once he passed Emerson with far less impressive results at RG than Fed. But USA has huge Hispanic lobby is the problem,no?
 
Some Fed fans disagree. I personally would rather see him win Wimbledon than win another FO. Nine Wimbledons is more legacy defining than one more FO. And he's sure not winning Wimbledon again if he plays or goes deep at the FO.
I know. We are split it seems. More fans probably leaning your way. I want him to win Wimbledon just as bad as you do.

But, to win a FO now would be out of this world because of how improbable it is. If he doesn't play, thats OK with me. I'm a fan until the end no matter what he chooses.
 
TWENTY career majors. Oldest and longest-reigning No.1 in history. $US115 million in prize money and counting.
Roger Federer could retire today a very, very happy man.

His status as an all-time sporting great is assured. Even if he never wins another match, he may go unchallenged as the greatest and most successful male tennis player in history.

With his 37th birthday approaching, however, Federer looks anything but finished. And you get the feeling plenty more incredible records and milestones will fall before he is.

There are the some obvious milestones still out there for Federer to chase.


His triumph in Rotterdam last week was his 97th at ATP level, putting him within touching distance of the magical 100 titles mark (Jimmy Connors holds the record with an astounding 109).

With 20 majors now in the bag he could be realistically setting his sights on Margaret Court’s all-time record of 24, all the while further distancing himself from greatest foe Rafael Nadal (second on the men’s all-time list with 16).

Should his form hold up another 12 months, Federer has a chance next year to surpass Ken Rosewall as tennis’ oldest ever major winner (the Aussie legend won the 1972 Australian Open at the age of 37 years and 62 days).

Then there’s another, more unlikely, achievement in the offing. One that would put the ultimate exclamation mark on his career — and Federer won’t get a better chance than this year to make it happen.

It’s why the Swiss should make winning a second French Open title — thus completing the rare ‘double career slam’ — a priority in 2018.


Since jagging his sole triumph at Roland Garros in 2009 to complete a career slam (winning all four major titles), the event has understandably fallen down his pecking order of importance.

He sat out the entire clay court season in 2017 and it proved a masterstroke, the rest and recuperation proving crucial to what has been a stunning and unexpected run of success on hard and grass courts over the past 12 months.

Most expect Federer will stick to the same plan this year, unsurprising given he’s played a mere five matches on clay since June, 2015. However he’s hinted ever so slightly a Roland Garros return this May might be on the cards.

“The clay season is up in the air,” Federer, who is “50-50” about lining up in next week’s Dubai event, said last month.

“If I’m playing a lot during this part of the season, it would be hard to play a robust clay season.

“It would be light (schedule) if I do play. We’ll see how it goes, I’m healthy and glad to be playing.

“I should be playing when I feel that way and not play when I don’t feel at 100 per cent or don’t feel ready to do it. That’s the secret for me moving forward.”

Embarking on another gruelling French Open campaign present obvious risks to Federer’s other 2018 plans but there are reasons to believe he could mount a legitimate title charge


We tend to forget Federer is among the greatest clay courters of all-time, at least statistically.

He’s one of only three men (along with compatriot Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic) aside from Nadal to win the French Open since 2004. His 11 ATP titles and a 75 per cent winning record across almost 300 matches on the surface put his claycourt figures in legendary territory. And he’s playing and moving as well now as he ever has.

Then there are the ongoing struggles of Federer’s wounded rivals. Ten-time champion Nadal is a deserved odds-on French Open favourite but he continues to struggle with injury, as does Wawrinka (who lost to the world No.259 last week). Djokovic is on a long road back from a serious elbow problem and there are fears we may never see the Andy Murray of old again.

In a year where young guns like Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev might pose the biggest title threats, a fit and firing Federer could be perfectly poised to throw caution to the wind and pounce for perhaps the most unlikely triumph of his career.


With his beloved Wimbledon also approaching and a ninth title in the offing many would fairly ask ‘why bother? when it comes to Roland Garros.

Because winning a second French Open title would make Federer the first man in the Open era to win each of the four majors at least twice (only Australians Rod Laver and Roy Emerson have ever done it).

Because jagging another Roland Garros title during the King of Clay’s reign would represent another savage blow in the Federer v Nadal legacy debate — and surely sting peers Djokovic and French Open-less Murray.

And just because winning a grand slam on your least-favoured surface at 36, against all odds, is a very badass, Roger Federer-like thing to do.

Article by Fox Sports.

NOTE: The authors views on this subject do not align with my own.
I am buying
 
Rather than calling it the DCGS, refer to it as a player winning all 4 slams at least twice--a feat never accomplished in the Open Era. Where it would rank among accomplishments is a matter of opinion, but still it would be an accomplishment.

Eating a hot-dog while serving would also be an accomplishment.

Somewhat easier, but still...

8-)
 
It isn’t very difficult to imagine - should he win FO some of very same people that insist he cannot - because Wimbledon is owed to him by some tennis god - will then go blabbering about the CYGS.

Smug-insecure index is high with some people here.

RF isn’t promised Wimbledon and USO, he’ll need to work just as hard for those as FO.

Fed was already cleared LAST YEAR to play FO. He didn’t because he had no time to train on clay as it was on the heels of his comeback.

This has nothing to do with his health and everything to do with Rafa for some.

Just watch. If RF wins FO, they’ll go on about CYGS.
 
Federer at the beginning of the season:

"AO, Wimbledon, USO are the cornerstone of my season. Everything else will be scheduled around them."

Later he said his schedule was:

AO
IW
Miami
Halle
Wimbledon
North America (didn't specify Cincy or Rogers cup)
USO
Laver Cup
Shanghai
Basel
WTF


Roger clearly stated his goals for the season. Of course things can change. For example, he played Rotterdam to secure the number one ranking.

It's obvious clay isn't his priority.

Maybe some "fans" can focus on their goals and let Federer do his thing.
 
Back
Top