Roger Federer is out of the French Open.
Federer, who announced earlier this season that he would skip all of the clay-court Masters 1000 events but left open the possibility of playing in Paris, made his decision on Monday.
Unfortunately, I won't be playing @rolandgarros this year. I'll miss my fans in France, but appreciate your support https://t.co/vRcb4SvQga
— Roger Federer (@rogerfederer) May 15, 2017
“Regrettably, I’ve decided not to participate in the French Open,” Federer posted in a statement on his website. “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.”
The 35-year-old is 65-16 lifetime at Roland Garros with a title in 2009. He has not played there since 2015, when he fell to fellow Swiss and eventual champion Stan Wawrinka in the quarterfinals.
[polldaddy poll=9747673]
hahahaha
Joe Smith MAY 17, 2017 AT 8:18 AM
“Lucky, my comment about Fed not playing FO was limited to an expression of disappointment. You, on the other hand, have in several places taken pains to argue that Fed never would have done anything at RG in any case. It just strikes me as gratuitous. Obviously, it’s a moot point and a bit silly to argue about. As I have said, I disagree, along with the bookies, Tignor, Laver, and many others. I’m not sure what else to say.”
__________________________________________________
You must be naive if you actually take what tennis analysts/experts say. Out of 14 world-wide top tennis analysts on ESPN, 9 of them picked Djokovic to win the AO, 4 picked Murray and 1 picked Stan. Not one of them made the final. Djoker won 1 match, Andy won 2 matches and Stan made the SF.
I must be naïve to take what experts say seriously? Perhaps. As opposed to random fans on a tennis site? Hmmm. One highly unpredictable result (Fed winning AO after a six month lay-off; the top two players failing even to make the QF) does not show anything. In any case, I would be very surprised if a sample of readers from this site did any better in their predictions. Anyone who can reliably pick winners in professional sport should be very rich. Its unpredictability is a big part of what makes it interesting.
My point against Lucky is simply that reasonable people can disagree about a given player’s chances in any event. It is reasonable to think that Federer had chances within a given range had he played RG; it is not reasonable to assign any professional player a 100% (or 0%) chance of winning any tournament.
Nah, Joe, you’re talking from the point of view of a bettor, or those who are interested in stats. So what with having a certain % chance of winning? It’s either Fed wins or not, and my take is he’s not winning. What’s the point of saying a player has a one percent chance of winning? These are all arbitrary, to me it’s either you win or you don’t and I repeat, my take is he’s not winning.
Nadal was struggling in 2014 clay season where he lost to ALMAGRO, Ferrer in MC and Barcelona and then got comprehensively beaten by Novak in Rome. Everyone thought he was second favourite. Come RG, he hit a different gear and stormed to the title. He peaked in the semis and the final and was untouchable. Djokovic was HELPLESS in that final and said I had no answers to Rafa’s forehand today. But yeah, we are made to believe that Fed’s larger aided single handed backhand would somehow make everything supreme about Nadal not so relevant and overpower him!
He reached that level in 2014 despite having a poor clay season. he has the PERFECT momentum now and it is a SCARY prospect for everyone! There are no guarantees and Nadal may not win RG. But, we are talking about prospects and chances and as far as those are concerned, there is no safer bet in the world of tennis.Undoubtedly.
Been extremely busy so coudn’t post. I came across there that are relevant to the ‘discussion’:
1. Todd Woodbridge: ‘Federer knew he’d have no chance of beating Nadal’
“I think he’s watched Rafa and seen the amazing form Rafa’s in, and realised he’d have no chance of beating him on a surface on which Rafa has always dominated him throughout the years.
“Even if he was to meet Rafa, let’s say in the Roland Garros final with three wins against him already under his belt this year, it’s a script that’s been written before. It would be a replay of those years that Nadal dominated him on clay.”
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/a/35551626/roger-federer-withdrawal-from-french-open-because-of-rafael-nadal/#page1
2.Marc Rosset (former olympic champ and fed’s campatriot): “The chances of him winning on clay at the French Open were quite low,”
“Roger is the kind of guy who goes to a tournament to win. If he doesn’t feel he is capable of winning the tournament, I don’t see any sense in him attending.
“I don’t think it is a matter of age, it is one of priority. He is going to play the two tournaments on grass before Wimbledon.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/39930092
3. Severin Luthie spoke on Fed’s withdrawal in his interview to L Equippe:
Did Rafael Nadal’s dominance on clay – he won Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Madrid – influence this decision?
‘Yeah, but I think it’s important you more look at it from your own side’, Lüthi said. ‘Roger, if he’s playing a tournament, in my eyes, he’s always able to win it and beat anyone on any surface. And on the other side, for me, even if Rafa is the big favorite in Paris, you never know what is going to happen. He could lose early or be injured or sick, so that was not really part of the decision-making, how Rafa was playing on clay.’
Being his coach, severin obviously shows faith in his man. However, you could sense that Rafa’s form was a big factor and team fed knew that they need some sort of luck to win the French and they could get lucky where Nadal somehow loses early due to injury or a shock loss.
You CANNOT challenge Rafael Nadal at the French when you haven’t even played a warm up event! I don’t think Fed has even spent a day of practising on clay! The only way he would have entered the draw would have been where Nadal was injured or struggling. He knows Nadal better than anyone else and it wasn’t worth the risk.
As far as I am concerned, this is no bias. Federer is a MONSTER of a player and has so much self-belief. But, Nadal on the clay of RG is an exception.
It’s about time someone said it! It was beyond insulting for some Fed fans to start talking up hys chances at RG. As though he doesn’t need warmup events before RG!
It is illogical and makes no sense. Whatever the factors he and his team took into account, it’s been clear that he has been targeting Wimby.