Roger Federer

A forum to discuss all things Roger Federer, not relating to specific matches.

Fed presser 2

96 Comments on Roger Federer

  1. “18-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer appears on the cover of GQ Magazine’s April issue. In his interview with GQ, Federer talks his 2017 Australian Open title, retirement, movies, and thank you notes. Some of it, was news to us…”

    GQ April Cover Boy #GOAT2.0 looking mighty fine LOLOLOLOLOL….

    https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/843907747888353280/K0VZtq31?format=jpg&name=600×314

    http://tennischannel.com/news/more-stories/5-things-we-learned-from-roger-federers-gq-cover

  2. “It goes without saying (but I’m saying it anyway) that 35-year-olds are not supposed to be winning majors and threatening to reclaim the number one ranking (and, yes, the same accolade extends to Serena). Sure, other players have exhibited impressive longevity; Andre Agassi, to name one, competed into his mid-thirties, and even reached the final of the U.S. Open when he was 35, in 2005 (his opponent, as you might recall, was Federer, who won the match in four sets). However, what Federer is doing is in another dimension. If nothing else, stamina should be a problem for a player his age, but it doesn’t appear to be an issue for Federer: he won three five-setters en route to his victory in Melbourne. Old guys are also prone to slow starts and lapses in concentration, but Federer 2.0 seems immune to that, too: he didn’t drop a set in Indian Wells and hasn’t surrendered one yet in Miami, either.”

    http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/03/roger-federer-career-greatest-all-time-atp-tennis/65110/

  3. Frome the same article, there’s a name for that period… now, what was it.

    “here’s a momentary void, which creates opportunities for players who would otherwise be perennial also-rans. The last time the men’s game had this kind of gap was in the early 2000s. Pete Sampras and Agassi were both past their peaks, a probable heir, Federer, was working his way up the rankings, and an opening had formed for players like Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick—sensational players, to be sure, but not guys who were capable of winning a dozen majors and dominating in the way that Sampras had and that Federer soon would. Hewitt and Roddick were transitional figures who took advantage of a generational shift to pocket a couple of slams. Hewitt won the U.S. Open in 2001 and Wimbledon the next year, while Roddick took the U.S. Open in 2003. Four months later, Federer won the Australian, followed it up with victories at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, and the window for players like Hewitt and Roddick slammed shut.”

  4. From the same article…. and it does, quite honestly, cautiously and very seriously, as a long time fan of tennis, make me wonder (or more accurately continues to make me wonder)…..

    “Most of us figured we’d seen the best of Federer. He was the oldest member of the Big Four and the first to show slippage…

    …Federer is poised to sweep the three most important titles of the first part of the season and has effectively become the number one player in the world again. In reclaiming his place atop the sport, he is totally subverting tennis’s normal pattern of generational succession. Federer was the most dominant player of his era. That era is now ending, but instead of some Hewitt-like figure taking advantage of the void that is beginning to form, it’s a resurgent Federer who is cashing in on it.”

    At any rate, watching Federer right now is an almost hallucinatory experience—you can’t quite believe what you are seeing.”

    #HardToBelieveIndeed
    #TheTruthIsOutThere

  5. Roger to skip Roland Garros; will focus on the grass & hardcourt season

    Regrettably, I’ve decided not to participate in the French Open. I’ve been working really hard, both on and off the court, during the last month but in order to try and play on the ATP World Tour for many years to come, I feel it’s best to skip the clay court season this year and prepare for the grass and hard court seasons. The start to the year has been magical for me but I need to recognize that scheduling will be the key to my longevity moving forward. Thus, my team and I concluded today that playing just one event on clay was not in the best interest of my tennis and physical preparation for the remainder of the season. I will miss the French fans, who have always been so supportive and I look forward to seeing them at Roland Garros next year.

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfederer.com/index.php/n … urt-season

    • Well, I suppose this means that Fed is focusing on winning Wimbly. With Muzz and Nole slumping, Rafa yet to prove he can do well at Wimbly again, and Curious not dedicated enough, I think Fed is the favorite.

  6. Kinda disappointed that Fed’s not playing the French, even though it’s the right decision in a lot of ways. Nadal would be the clear favourite for the title in any case, but I’d liked to have seen them (possibly) battle one out at RG for old-times’ sake, particularly after Fed was finally able to string a few H2H wins together.

    • More like wishful thinking, that Fed without any warm up events on clay, could battle it out with Rafa at the FO. It will end up like FO2008.

      I don’t understand why people assume that Fed is so superior that he can just sweep away the other great players on clay to meet Rafa at the FO, when Fed has not played a single match on clay. If it is on grass, at least I can understand, but on clay! Come on, what have Fed done on clay these past two years? I bet his improved BH won’t be as effective on clay and his serve won’t be as lethal when it’s on clay.

      • Lucky: no one assumes anything like that. If anyone assumes anything, it’s you when you say that Federer would have no chance to make a deep run at RG, or that any encounter with Nadal would end up like 2008. Objectively -as the dominant player in the first few months of the year, and as a five time finalist at RG- Federer had a good chance to make a deep run at this year’s tournament, and even a decent chance to win it, as Rod Laver said just a couple weeks ago. The bookies had him 5th favourite, after Rafa, Nole, and Stan. I would have put him second or third after Rafa, given the suspect form of Nole and Murray.

        I imagine it must have been a very tough call, hence the long wait before the definitive announcement. In the end, Roger obviously judged the chance of winning not to be worth the risk, at his age, of getting injured/tired out and lowering his chances for the rest of the season.

        • Joe, no one assumes that? Didn’t you read TWD’s post just before mine?? I was responding to his post, I don’t see why you think you’re being objective when obviously you’re not! Stop pretending that you’re not biased when clearly you are!

          Fed without playing a single match on clay and people expect him to battle it out with Rafa at the FO? Fed was five times finalist at the FO but when was the last time he made the final there? And, each time he made the final, did he not have played any warm up tournament??

          Even in 2006 when he had his clean sweep of AO/IW/Miami, didn’t he play MC and Rome before getting to final at the FO? Or are you also assuming that without playing at MC and Rome, Fed would still make the final of FO that year?

          Fed, unlike his ardent fans, is more realistic about his chances on clay. If he thinks he can win the FO, why would he want to skip it and loses a chance of having another slam title?

          • Lucky, here are TWD’s words: Nadal would be the clear favorite for the title…but I’d have liked to see them (possibly) battle it out at RG for old time’s sake”

            That is not assuming anything. First, TWD says “possibly.” Second, they could have met as soon as the QF, in which case Fed would only have to win four matches.

            Again, the bookies had Fed a 5th favourite for RG, knowing that he would not have played any warm up. Based on the numbers, they expected him to the QF, at which point anything can happen. Again, I wasn’t assuming he’d make the final. It would be nice to see you admit, for once, that it would not have been so far-fetched to imagine him getting there.

            • Joe, TWD hoped that it’s possible for Fed to battle it out with Rafa at the FO, so to me that’s wishful thinking! Also, if you’ve read some of the posts here at Tenngrand, it’s not difficult for you to find some posts that clearly assumed that Fed would make the QF or SF, so please DO NOT ASSUME that you’ve read everything and that no one here assumes this or that! It’s not only about you and your posts here, you don’t represent the others!

          • I was going to respond to Joe, but Lucky really said it for me. It is insulting to suggest that Fed could skip all of the warmup tournaments and just waltz into RG and then presumably beat Rafa!

            I feel that once Fef made the decision to skip all of the clay court tournaments leading into RG, that he most likely was not going to play there. But I waited for him to announce his decision and was not surprised.

            Contrary to some of his fans, Fed cannot walk on water! To come into any slam without playing a single match in any warmup tournament, would be foolish. Then to read some of the hyperbole here from his fans, as though he was going to come and beat Rada as a given, was just too much.

            They say talk is cheap. Well there has been a lot of cheap talk from the Fed fans. Rafa has spoken with his racket at RG and his fans don’t have to engage in bigging him up because the record is there for all to see.

            • NNY: here’s a challenge. Find a relatively recent quote on this site where I or any other Fed fan has said that Federer was going to waltz through the draw at RG. As I pointed out to Lucky, TWD didn’t do any such thing. Nor have I. All I have said is that I’m disappointed that Fed isn’t playing. I happen to think he had a decent chance -as did the bookies and Rod Laver, amongst othere. Do you find their informed opinions “insulting”?

        • If anything, it’s Fed’s ardent fans, including Laver, who’s not objective and gives Fed a good chance of being one of the fav there. What would you expect Laver to say, that Fed has no chance at all? You think Laver could say that out loud?

          Now, in my biased assessment of Fed’s situation, I assume that Fed waits till now to make his FO withdrawal announcement because he’s watching how the clay season unfold, how Stan and Rafa in particular have fared this clay season, because how many points they both could gain on clay may impact Fed’s seeding at Wimbledon.

          Stan in particular hasn’t done well this clay season, so in all likelihood he’s not going to be seeded in the top four at Wimbledon. Rafa may or may not depending on how he fares at the FO. As long as Fed is seeded in top four at Wimbledon, that will make it even better for his chances of winning there.

          Fed is scheduled to play two warm up events on grass, so immediately after the FO (if he plays) he has to play on grass the following week. He probably feels that he might as well forego playing on clay.

          Both Rafa and Fed when asked about their seeding at FO ( for Rafa) and Wimbledon (for Fed) would probably tell you it doesn’t matter to them, but we can’t deny the fact that with better seeding, it can make life a bit easier most of the times, even if you’re Fed or Rafa.

          • Having Fed as a fifth favorite does not make him an odds on favorite by any means! In fact, I think it’s a joke to make someone a fifth favorite! Why not add a sixth and a seventh? There are usually two or three favorites and that’s it.

            As far as bragging, obnoxious posts here from Fed fans, how about the one saying that there will be an asterisk next to Rafa’s win this year, we can thank Fed! I think it was Fedfan who posted that bit of rubbish!

            Some of us laughed it off, but I think it was the kind of arrogant garbage that we have to read here. It takes a lot for me to go on the warpath with Fed fans, because I don’t like wasting my energy. But there have been too many comments from Fed fans assuming that he would go deep at RG without any preparation.

            • Yep, NNY is right, there are enough of comments here at Tenngrand, assuming Fed would go deep at RG without any preparation. One can only take so much, hence my response about wishful thinking that Fed would battle it out with Rafa….

            • NNY: Again, I never said that Fed was odds-on favourite to win or make the final. I thought he would have had a good chance, as did the odds-makers.

              I took Fedfan to be making a joke about the asterisk. I would be the last person to put an asterisk on this year’s RG winner, whoever it turns out to be.

          • Lucky: Do you count professional odds-makers as among Fed’s “ardent fans”? They had Federer 15-1 to win RG, last I checked. Not great, but certainly in with a chance and better than all players save four. Do you think you know more than they do?

            • Joe, they have to get people to bet! You think they would leave out Fed, knowing people would place bets on him?

            • Of course that’s one consideration. But they won’t put such (relatively) low odds if they didn’t think the objective chance of his winning was somewhere in that ballpark.

            • Please, they like you and many Fed fans, would go by the stats most likely. I mean, they haven’t watched Fed played on clay this season, how do you expect them to give a more reliable odds?

            • By that reasoning, why should I expect you to give reliable odds? The fact that Federer hasn’t yet played on clay this season doesn’t mean that there is no reliable information on which to base his RG chances.

            • Do the bookies have any inside information? If not, then Lucky can claim to know at least as much as the bookies. Do you know how bookies calculate and offer odds?

            • My point was simply that the bookies can’t reasonably be called “ardent fans” of Federer. Unless, Mary, you think his sponsors are paying off the bookies as well.

            • Joe, I wasn’t giving reliable odds, I merely watched tennis matches and gather the info and gave my opinion. I mean, do you think the bookies are always right??

              I think many of us who watch tennis matches day in day out know more about the matches then the bookies, who give out odds way before some matches or events are being played.

            • Why would the sponsors pay the bookies? If the sponsors are getting the organizers to rig draws, and give favorable schedules etc, the sponsors themselves may bet on Fed as Forstmann ( IMG) did in 2007. In fact, I think the ATP/ITF have made some rules that do not allow such betting but these people can still get away with it by making an “unrelated person” place the bets.

            • Lucky, in making the claim that it is far-fetched to think Federer would have gotten far at RG, you are indeed giving odds of a sort. What do you think the chances are that he would have made the final? 20%? 10% 1%?

              My view is that he had very good chances to advance into the second week of the tournament, certainly more than 50%. I would bet a decent amount of money that the vast majority of informed tennis observers would agree with me. We could all be wrong and you right, but I can’t see any reason to think so.

            • Joe, I also want to say this: Fed’s decision itself tells us all, fans or non fans, that he knows he’s not going deep at the FO when he hasn’t played any warm up event. The fact that Fed signed up for two warm up events on grass in preparation for Wimbledon, tells me that even on his fav surface i.e. grass, he thinks he needs warm up events to give him confidence to play well at Wimbledon and hopefully to win. What make people think that Fed feels that without any warm up on clay, he still can go deep at the FO?

            • Lucky, I wouldn’t claim to know what Federer’s reasons were. My guess -nothing more- is that his competitive nature made him want to play, but that his team persuaded him that the cost-benefit analysis didn’t make sense. That doesn’t mean that he knew or thought he couldn’t go deep at RG. It does suggest that he didn’t think the potential cost to his future chances, notably at Wimby, was worth it. Being nearly 36 years old was, I suspect, the chief factor.

            • Or maybe his team realized the usual rigging deals wouldn’t help him at RG and better to focus on rigging at Wimbly!

            • See, Joe, how biased you are when it comes to Fed?

              Why do you think he needs two warm up events before the Wimbledon but not any before the FO? Clearly he had the intention of skipping the FO, His fans think the world of him, and SOME assumed that without any warm up events he still would go far at the FO, and yet he needs two warm up events on grass to give him the added confidence that he would do well to win at Wimbledon, which is on his fav surface. Do you see how Fed is being realistic whilst SOME of his fans are not??

            • TWD, for Fed to meet Rafa, based on their respective rankings, the earliest they could meet is at the QF stage. You mentioned that you wish to see them play each other at the FO for old time sake, after their recent H2H; to me that implied you thought Fed might have a chance against Rafa.

            • Joe, if you want my opinion, I would say Fed has zero chance to make the final; 25% to make the SF; 50% chance to reach the QF. I think that’s very generous odds.

              In fact I had mentioned in earlier posts on another thread that the furthest Fed could go at the FO is the QF stage.

            • Sorry, Lucky, but to say that Federer had 0% chance to make the RG final is, frankly, idiotic. Please note that I’m not calling you an idiot and don’t believe you to be one, but to *say* that he had a 0% chance is idiotic.

              On standard interpretations of rational choice theory, for you to make that claim implies that you would bet an infinitely large amount of money to win an infinitely small amount. In practical terms, it means that had Fed entered RG and you were a betting person, you would be willing to bet everything you own against him making the final, just in order to win one penny.

              25% chance to make the SF and 50% chance to make the QF sound reasonable to me, given no preparation beforehand. Again, however, think what your 0% chance implies: you think Fed may have had a 1 in 4 chance to make the SF, at which point he is absolutely guaranteed to lose. That makes no sense, don’t you agree?

            • On the question of warm-up events, of course I agree that Federer’s chances at RG would be better had he played a warm-up event. Evidently, he thinks playing warm-up events before Wimbledon increases his chances there. No disagreement here. However, it doesn’t follow that *without* any warm-up, Federer’s chances at RG would be very low. All that follows it that they would be lower than they would be, were he to play warm-up events such as Madrid and/or Rome.

            • No, not idiotic. And, no one would bet everything he or she has on a tennis match! I’m not a betting person so don’t talk to me about betting!!

              You’re getting very irritating tbh, I see Fed having no chance to reach a final because that 25% chance of him making the SF, even if he could, he would be beaten there. Why? Because in order for him to get there, he with a high possibility, has to fight tooth and nail, perhaps in five sets for most if not all his matches before reaching the SF, leaving him gassed to face his SF opponent, whoever that is. Don’t be arrogant and assume that he will just sweep through the draw easily, when there are players who are younger, fitter, better prepared and ready to hit hard and serve big to blow him off the court.

            • The point is, Lucky, that you don’t really believe that Federer had a 0% chance to win RG. Incidentally, you can see my link to Steve Tignor’s recent column on the Fed withdraws from FO page, in which he say that he thought Fed had a good chance to win RG as recently as a few days ago. Is Tignor being arrogant too?

      • I didn’t mean to imply that Fed would beat or take sets off Rafa, or even play him at all (and they wouldn’t have to play in a final by any means), I was just commenting on the possibility of a H2H match-up on clay. It wouldn’t have been a sure thing of course, just a chance. Like I said in the article about Fed’s withdrawal, he could’ve quite easily been knocked out in the first or second round, he would’ve been rusty coming in with no lead-ups.

        • Depends on how loosely you define ‘a chance’, but I think he would be an outside one if he met Rafa in the QF stage. Do I think he’d win? No, and like I said, he could easily go down in straight sets if they played, Rafa’s in very good form, and clay’s a different ball-game to HC as we know. But I still think that even with very little practice he’d be more of a challenge than most, and regardless of the probabilities it’d be interesting to see how the match would play out. Moot point now, of course.

    • I don’t care if Fed sweeps the rest of the season. All I want is for Rafa to win RG.I am worried and nervous because everyone has made Rafa the favorite.

    • Lucky has made an excellent point in bringing up the fact that Fed is playing in two warmup events for the grass season! We know how good Fed is on grass, yet he has taken the opportunity to play in these events before Wimbledon!

      It is patently absurd to think that he could come in cold to RG without playing in a single warmup tournament and get a good result. It also makes no sense. My sense was that Fed would decide at some point to pull out of RG. But I wasn’t sure about it. I just thought that forgoing any and all clay warmup tournaments indicated that this was not a high priority for him.

      Fed made the right decision. I am not quibbling with that at all. He is targeting Wimbledon. That’s certainly no secret. He has to pick and choose and schedule so that his body will be ready and he can maximize his chances at the tournaments that he wants to play.

      It’s mere speculation on the part of you and other Fed fans who feel that he would have gone deep and maybe even gotten to the final. Oddsmakers and the like don’t carry much weight with me. They are not tennis experts and not knowledgeable about the sport.

      At this point the discussion is moot, because Fed is not playing at RG.

      • Regarding that post from Fedfan, if the shoe was on the other foot and a Rafa fan said something like that then I don’t think you would have found it humorous!

        You didn’t like the word that was used to characterize Fed pulling out of RG. I am not going to repeat it. Where was your sense of humor then? I don’t happen to agree with that comment or the use of that word, but maybe some Rafa fans here have had it with the grandiose predictions for Fed at RG.

        I thought Fedfan was trying to get a rise out of Rafa fans and kind of poke them in the eye. He was baiting and for the most part, people responded with overwhelming laughter and derision because of the absurdity of what he said. It’s funny to a Fedfan for obvious reasons. But expect to get comments that you may not like as a response. A Rafa fan basically was saying that Fed was chickening out. I don’t agree with that, nor do I think it was the case. But I understand given the discussion and comments on this subject, why a Rafa fan would say it.

  7. I think Fed made a smart decision for him. Not playing in any of the clay court warmup tournaments and opting to rest in preparation for the grass and summer hard court season, makes sense for him.

    We all knew that Fed was targeting Wimby. He. An pick and choose how much he wants to play and gets he needs to achieve his goals st this stage of his career.

  8. I think we can all agree to asterisk Nadal’s now inevitable win at RG this year like many asterisked Federer’s RG 09 win. This one’s payback. Enjoy it!

    • And rightly so! Anyone who “wins” RG without beating Rafa gets an asterisk. This includes Roger, Stan and Novak. So only Rafa has won RG in living memory.

      However we will award Soderling an honorary title for beating both Rafa and Federer at RG, although not in the same year.

      *Novak did beat Rafa at RG, although not in the year in which he won there so he gets only half an asterisk.

      • As I said elsewhere, I don’t believe in asterisks (with the possible exception of players later shown to have been doping). But they definitely don’t apply when the player in question actually participated in the tournament (e.g. RG 2009, which Rafa played).

    • No asterisk next to Rafa’s 2008 Wimbledon win beating a prime time 26 year old Fed on his favourite surface.

      (Fed was gracious in defeat and promptly blamed it on darkness. If only he had a bigger racquet and maybe a flashlight.)

  9. Rafa is amongst the top favs to win RG yes but it’s not inevitable he will win it. There are 127 others..

    Regarding beloved Fedfans ASTERISK comment..good one to have everyone enjoy a hearty laugh 🙂

  10. Fedfans have naively clung to the fact Roger entered his name for RG as proof he planned to play and even laboured under the illusion he had a fighting chance to win it. I trust they have been divested of this notion by the comments from knowledgeable tennis fans – most of whom never believed he had any intention of playing in the first place.

  11. RT @carole_bouchard: Ah the percentages question to Rafa. Rafa : “I was never very good at mathematics”. He just hates that question lol

    Rafa’s not the only one never very good at mathematics LOL. A lot of that going around here. (Not to mention quite a few straw man arguments thrown in for good measure.)

    • ed,

      I repeat your old post:

      [ed251137 MARCH 1, 2016 AT 4:19 AM:
      Fashion faux pas
      Anna Wintour forgot to remind Roger formal attire demands shirt sleeves extend below the jacket sleeve.]

  12. Forgot to mention protocol demands you wear a hat, or at least of one of those ridiculous fascinators, in the presence of Royalty.

  13. Fed says he skipped the FO “based on health”, but I didn’t found in the article what was wrong with him:

    https://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-apos-no-regrets-apos-213100716.html

    Fed: “For a long time the schedule was to play Paris but all of a SUDDEN I just felt that I wouldn’t be comfortable doing it. I didn’t want to compromise the goal of the grass-court season, Wimbledon, the US Open and beyond.
    “I felt that the French Open may potentially have a negative effect on what’s to come. It may have been helpful, but I felt there was more risk that it would go the other way. Based on HEALTH, that’s why I decided to skip.”

  14. Tim Henman on why Federer skipped RG:

    “He told me, I won it once in 18 tries, when at fittest and Nadal not there,’ Henman revealed.

    I hope the people would get less delusional and respect the fact that it takes farrrr more than just a bigger racket to beat the best player ever on clay!!

    • Federer could have beaten him in 2011 with smaller racquet if he had stayed aggressive. Bigger racquet would give him a better chance, but mental belief is what would make the biggest difference, imo. I’m not sure he would have that, even now, on clay.

      Nadal was there when Fed won; he just got beat earlier in the tournament.

      • Maybe that was the year when Federer would have beaten Nadal finally. I mean we never know. And can’t be sure that Nadal would have won. It’s really not fair when some people say the only reason Fed has 1 FO is because Nadal was not there in the final, failing to appreciate that Roger played the final so many times and deserved to win it. And he did it. Why Nadal was not there? He is the best on clay, but still human.

      • Joe, I doubt Fed would beat Rafa at FO2011 even if he was using a bigger racket. Belief wasn’t enough for him to beat Rafa there imo. The fact that with a bigger racket, Fed barely beat Rafa at the AO this year, tells me that on clay Fed would be worse off! On clay, bigger racket or not, belief or no belief, it’s not enough for Fed to beat Rafa, because Rafa has/had the belief that he will and he can beat Fed!

        Regarding FO2009, if Fed were to meet Rafa there in R4, I also doubt that Fed would beat Rafa. It took Sod’s relentless hard hitting for a good four sets to take Rafa down; I doubt Fed could play that way to beat Rafa. Fed was struggling through his matches there, needed four sets to beat Agususo, needed five sets to beat Haas, another five sets to beat Delpo, he wasn’t playing well there in the first place. I really doubt Fed would beat Rafa, if Rafa made it to the final!

    • Joe, you have never heard of Petef Carter? So you’ve not been following Fed’s tennis for long I suppose.

      • Well, like I said, I watch the tennis and have watched Roger since about 2003 (after Carter died), but never have followed the backstories that much. But I agree, it’s hard to believe I’ve never heard of Carter before.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


in the same Rolex Cellini Replica style as the team replica watches. I find the engraving far more satisfying, but would have liked to see a bit more depth to it. There is a little more branding on the PRC200. Firstly, Burberry handbags the 6 oclock sub-dial sports a basketball image in grey. Additionally, the pushers are edged with red (top) and blue (bottom), Breitling Replica Watches UK which is, to me, the coolest thing.