2018 Australian Open - Early Chatter

[GameSetAndMath]

The slam count is probably 90% of what Fed thinks about now. The last 10% is probably a mix between getting to #1 one last time and closing that atrocious H2H with Nadal. Rafa catching him would of course be a nightmare. That's nothing he will admit but that's something he will fight to avoid. More than anything that's what keeps him around. 19 is great...now. It ain't great if the island tw*t gets there. That's the right attitude and it's one I'm confident he has. If Rafa and Nole were at 8 slams I wouldn't be surprised if Roger had already retired.

While I disagree with Busted and agree with you that the slam count difference is the important factor, I don't think Roger plays just for that. In particular, I doubt that Roger would have retired if Rafa and Novak were 8 slams behind and it was reasonable to assume that they would not catch up to Roger. Even in that situation Roger would have continued playing as long as he remained a contender at the slams (not to mention the love of game).

 

[Moxie]

I don't doubt that Roger would prefer to retire with more Slam titles than Rafa, just as Rafa (and Novak) want to catch the guy(s) ahead of him, but I think the characterization of "nightmare" is more a fan fiction than what these players actually experience.

I could be wrong, but I think the excessive focus on Slam count and other statistics is more important to fans than it is to the players themselves. They want to win, they want to collect their trophies and increase their legacies, but my sense for them is the glory is in the moment of being the best player on court, and winning the tournament at hand. I'm sure they sit back and check their Wikipedia pages every so often, but the focus is the battlefield itself, not the career scorecard that we fans focus on.

Roger, Rafa, and Novak are arguably the three greatest players ever to play the game. Everything else is just icing on the cake. And if we really must rank them, no matter who ends with the most Slam titles, all three are going to have gaps in their careers that naysayers will point at. In the end, though, we're looking at the three greatest players of the Open Era - at worst, three of the four or give best (if anyone ranks Pete or Bjorn ahead of Novak). That's pretty special.

I do agree with you that Darth is rather a Drama Queen as to how far he extrapolates his hopes and fears onto Roger (and Rafa.) And I do mostly agree that the satisfaction for them is mostly in the battle, and with their own resumes. However, several things have come to light of late that made me think it does matter to them rather more than I thought, how they stack up against each other. For example, Roger playing Montreal, which did really seem about being in the race for #1. (I mean, who would have thought he'd care, with such a rack of weeks at #1, already?) And Toni Nadal, presumably as Rafa's surrogate, talking about him passing Roger in the Majors count. If Toni's thinking about it, it means that Rafa is, and that it's a goal. My point would be, I think it seems to be somewhere between any of them having "nightmares," and what comes next just being "icing on the cake." I don't mean to oversimplify your point, and I guess neither of us should be surprised to find out that they still make each other feel particularly competitive. I do think that both Roger and Rafa should, and likely do, feel mostly happy with their accomplishments, but it seems that they still drive each other. I can get why Novak might feel a bit more driven to keep up. Though, as you say, they're all 3 pretty much at the top of the pile. Should all 3 quit tomorrow, they'd have no reason to hang their heads. But they're not quitting. And there has to be some reason to get your tired and sore body up every day to practice, to get on all those planes, when you've won so much. So I guess it makes sense that, as much as anything else, they drive each other. We do imagine a lot on them, as fans, but it does seem that we haven't invented all of the competitiveness between them.

 

[Moxie]

Andy Murray's instagram about his hip worries:

 

[britbox]

AO is looking like a long shot for Muzz. I hope he makes a decision before they make the draw.

 

[El Dude]

That does not sound good. In fact, this injury is sounding like bordering on career-threatening.

 

[isabelle]

who'll show up in AO ? Sir Andy ? Nole ? Stan ? Manacor's bull ? Kei ? big mystery for the moment

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

who'll show up in AO ? Sir Andy ? Nole ? Stan ? Manacor's bull ? Kei ? big mystery for the moment

I think it's more about Goffin, Zverev, Dimitrov etc.

I know it sucks not to have the megastars, but this is the field we have right now.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

AO is looking like a long shot for Muzz. I hope he makes a decision before they make the draw.

As already pointed out by someone else, by not playing in warm-ups (that affect seedings), Murray will go down from his current ranking of 16. Given his ranking, rebalancing is the same as replacing him with a lucky loser. So, it does not really matter at what point of time Andy chooses to withdraw from AO.

Now that we have reached a situation that the timing does not matter, I am sure that Andy will withdraw well before the draw.

 

[Busted]

Moyà says that not playing for Rafa is a precaution, to give him more rest before the tournament that matters. If you ask Darth, or most anyone, Roger does need to worry about the tightening Slam gap between them. It will still be the deal-breaker. I really can't believe you need to sing that old song about "not playing anyone out of the top 25," as to Rafa's USO win. :whistle: It's not like Roger had a rough road at Wimby. And it's not like Rafa wouldn't have played the #2 seed there, if Roger had made the date. Let me ask you this: do you think that Rafa's USO deserves an asterisk? Or that it doesn't count? If no, then why do you keep bring it up, other than sour grapes? I think we all agree it wasn't the most competitive USO of the last many, but you're just mad that Roger wasn't there to take it, instead of Rafa, innit?

What tennis fans think Roger "needs" to worry about and what Roger really worries about are two different things, right? He needs to stay zen - don't worry about stuff he can't control. Nadal's 5 years younger than he is and if nothing else, if he's healthy, he's almost always going to win the French Open. And really - even if Nadal ties him or passes him? Isn't the debate still going to rage on because of the imbalance in which Slams Nadal has won? If he wins 14 FOs, 3 USO, 2 Wimbledons and 1 AO...people like me are going to say, "Take away clay and Nadal only got 6 Slams. Take away grass and Roger has 11?"

As far as me still making fun of Nadal's USO win? Hey, if you want to kid yourself that Roger's Wimbledon draw (R16 - #13 Dimitrov; QF - #6 Raonic; SF - #11 Berdych; F - #7 Cilic) was as easy as Nadal not having to play anyone inside the top 25 - top 27 actually (R16 - #64 Dolgopolov; QF - #53 Rublev; SF - #28 DelPo; F - #32 Anderson) ? Knock yourself out. There is clearly a difference between having to play 4 Top 15 players to win a Slam and NOT having to play anyone inside the top 27. If the situation was reversed and it was Federer who hadn't beaten anyone inside the top 27 to win a Slam you'd be all over this stat the same way I am.

 

[Busted]

The slam count is probably 90% of what Fed thinks about now. The last 10% is probably a mix between getting to #1 one last time and closing that atrocious H2H with Nadal. Rafa catching him would of course be a nightmare. That's nothing he will admit but that's something he will fight to avoid. More than anything that's what keeps him around. 19 is great...now. It ain't great if the island tw*t gets there. That's the right attitude and it's one I'm confident he has. If Rafa and Nole were at 8 slams I wouldn't be surprised if Roger had already retired.

I still disagree. I really don't think Roger cares about getting to #1 again or else he'd play more tournaments. If he'd played 1 or 2 clay Masters and the FO he'd probably have finished the year at #1..

As far as the Slam count? I'm not saying he doesn't care at all - but I don't think it consumes him as much as it does his fans. So I'm not saying he doesn't want to win more Slams - but I don't think it's all he cares about. He admitted that now he's playing for titles - and with titles comes a higher ranking. So if #1 happens it happens because he's winning titles. But at the same time he's not exactly chasing them either by overplaying because that decreases his chances of being fit for the Slams. Of course he wants to win Slams - but I don't think that's "90%" of why he's still playing. Maybe tying Martina Navratilova at Wimbledon with 9 championships is 90%...but I wouldn't say it was true in general...

Re; the H2H with Nadal - you're negating the fact that Federer himself said in Shanghai when asked about the H2H that it is what it is and he'll never close that gap because there's not enough time left in his career and their rankings right now mean they'll only meet in finals. I think Roger has made peace with the fact that he simply lost too many clay matches to Nadal and at times played the wrong way on other surfaces. That's not to say he's not going to want to continue beating Nadal when they do meet. I just don't think he's as obsessed about the H2H number as some of his fans are - especially now that the non-clay H2H is in his favor (13-10).

 

[Busted]

I don't doubt that Roger would prefer to retire with more Slam titles than Rafa, just as Rafa (and Novak) want to catch the guy(s) ahead of him, but I think the characterization of "nightmare" is more a fan fiction than what these players actually experience.

I could be wrong, but I think the excessive focus on Slam count and other statistics is more important to fans than it is to the players themselves. They want to win, they want to collect their trophies and increase their legacies, but my sense for them is the glory is in the moment of being the best player on court, and winning the tournament at hand. I'm sure they sit back and check their Wikipedia pages every so often, but the focus is the battlefield itself, not the career scorecard that we fans focus on.

Roger, Rafa, and Novak are arguably the three greatest players ever to play the game. Everything else is just icing on the cake. And if we really must rank them, no matter who ends with the most Slam titles, all three are going to have gaps in their careers that naysayers will point at. In the end, though, we're looking at the three greatest players of the Open Era - at worst, three of the four or give best (if anyone ranks Pete or Bjorn ahead of Novak). That's pretty special.

I think one of the main reasons these 3 care about that Slam count is that it's how their peers judge GOAT. There was Uncle Toni recently telling a Spanish newspaper that he thought Nadal would catch and pass Federer before his career was over. It's the experts that's put the emphasis on whoever has the most Slams being the GOAT, so from that standpoint the players have to care. That's why the people who support Nadal always bring up the H2H - how can Fed be the GOAT when he has a losing H2H with Nadal? Yet nobody every asks how can Nadal be the GOAT when he has a losing H2H with Djokovic? Federer too for that matter. As Roger said though - he's done things that Nadal will never do and Nadal's done things things that he will never do. And the same is true of Djokovic. BUT....Roger's still the GOAT, people! LOL!

 

[Moxie]

What tennis fans think Roger "needs" to worry about and what Roger really worries about are two different things, right? He needs to stay zen - don't worry about stuff he can't control. Nadal's 5 years younger than he is and if nothing else, if he's healthy, he's almost always going to win the French Open. And really - even if Nadal ties him or passes him? Isn't the debate still going to rage on because of the imbalance in which Slams Nadal has won? If he wins 14 FOs, 3 USO, 2 Wimbledons and 1 AO...people like me are going to say, "Take away clay and Nadal only got 6 Slams. Take away grass and Roger has 11?"

As far as me still making fun of Nadal's USO win? Hey, if you want to kid yourself that Roger's Wimbledon draw (R16 - #13 Dimitrov; QF - #6 Raonic; SF - #11 Berdych; F - #7 Cilic) was as easy as Nadal not having to play anyone inside the top 25 - top 27 actually (R16 - #64 Dolgopolov; QF - #53 Rublev; SF - #28 DelPo; F - #32 Anderson) ? Knock yourself out. There is clearly a difference between having to play 4 Top 15 players to win a Slam and NOT having to play anyone inside the top 27. If the situation was reversed and it was Federer who hadn't beaten anyone inside the top 27 to win a Slam you'd be all over this stat the same way I am.

No, I actually wouldn't. It's petty and meaningless. But you didn't answer my question: why do you keep harping on it? Do you think that his USO doesn't count?

But I do agree with you that almost whatever happens, the debate will rage on. :lulz2:

 

[Busted]

who'll show up in AO ? Sir Andy ? Nole ? Stan ? Manacor's bull ? Kei ? big mystery for the moment

I think Murray's out. Ditto for Nishikori. Djokovic, Nadal, Stan, Raonic will all enter the draw...but I'm putting money on Djokovic to pull out at some point. I picked him as a possible winner...but that was before I knew his elbow was still an issue...

 

[Busted]

While I disagree with Busted and agree with you that the slam count difference is the important factor, I don't think Roger plays just for that. In particular, I doubt that Roger would have retired if Rafa and Novak were 8 slams behind and it was reasonable to assume that they would not catch up to Roger. Even in that situation Roger would have continued playing as long as he remained a contender at the slams (not to mention the love of game).

I concur that Roger wouldn't have retired even if he was 8 Slams ahead. He's said a bunch of times - especially in Perth the other day - that even when he became #1 in 2004 his goal was to play for a long time and that his schedule has been predicated on longevity for a long time now - even more so in 2017. Someone asked him at the Wimbledon final press conference what keeps him motivated and he said he loves to play, he's got a great team - and most importantly - Mirka lets him. He's also been forthcoming in saying that if Mirka doesn't want to travel with the kids anymore - that's the end of his career. So no, it's not 90% about the Slams. I think it's 90% about loving the game.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I still disagree. I really don't think Roger cares about getting to #1 again or else he'd play more tournaments. If he'd played 1 or 2 clay Masters and the FO he'd probably have finished the year at #1..

As far as the Slam count? I'm not saying he doesn't care at all - but I don't think it consumes him as much as it does his fans. So I'm not saying he doesn't want to win more Slams - but I don't think it's all he cares about. He admitted that now he's playing for titles - and with titles comes a higher ranking. So if #1 happens it happens because he's winning titles. But at the same time he's not exactly chasing them either by overplaying because that decreases his chances of being fit for the Slams. Of course he wants to win Slams - but I don't think that's "90%" of why he's still playing. Maybe tying Martina Navratilova at Wimbledon with 9 championships is 90%...but I wouldn't say it was true in general...

Funny that you think that is a serious aim for Roger. Women's tennis is totally different world than Men's tennis and so it does not even make sense to compare. Hence, that aspect is not seriously considered neither by pundits, nor by journalists. Get real.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a purely speculative thought: Maybe Roger cares less about being GOAT than Mirka does...she had a mediocre career, but is living vicariously through her husband. I mean, wives and all .

 

[DarthFed]

I still disagree. I really don't think Roger cares about getting to #1 again or else he'd play more tournaments. If he'd played 1 or 2 clay Masters and the FO he'd probably have finished the year at #1..

As far as the Slam count? I'm not saying he doesn't care at all - but I don't think it consumes him as much as it does his fans. So I'm not saying he doesn't want to win more Slams - but I don't think it's all he cares about. He admitted that now he's playing for titles - and with titles comes a higher ranking. So if #1 happens it happens because he's winning titles. But at the same time he's not exactly chasing them either by overplaying because that decreases his chances of being fit for the Slams. Of course he wants to win Slams - but I don't think that's "90%" of why he's still playing. Maybe tying Martina Navratilova at Wimbledon with 9 championships is 90%...but I wouldn't say it was true in general...

Re; the H2H with Nadal - you're negating the fact that Federer himself said in Shanghai when asked about the H2H that it is what it is and he'll never close that gap because there's not enough time left in his career and their rankings right now mean they'll only meet in finals. I think Roger has made peace with the fact that he simply lost too many clay matches to Nadal and at times played the wrong way on other surfaces. That's not to say he's not going to want to continue beating Nadal when they do meet. I just don't think he's as obsessed about the H2H number as some of his fans are - especially now that the non-clay H2H is in his favor (13-10).

I do think Roger cares about #1 when he is close to it but he's not going to chase it after screwing up and playing Montreal. His decision to play there was all about chasing #1 and it backfired.

Yes Roger clearly won't catch Rafa in the H2H but I'm sure he'd like to make it a lot more respectable. They've played 23 times off clay so I don't like the clay excuse. With their difference in ability off clay he should be up 17-6 at worst instead of an ugly 13-10.

And I think people are underestimating these guys' competitiveness. You don't think it's HUGE to them to end up the greatest of them all? Of course it is. Look, they've all had great careers but there is a world of difference between the greatest of all time and the 2nd greatest. I bet it consumes their thoughts at slams a lot more than some are making out here and I disagree that Fed would've kept the same motivation if there was no threat to his greatness. If Nole and Rafa were nothing I don't think he'd be chugging along like he has in his early to mid 30's.

 

[Moxie]

I think one of the main reasons these 3 care about that Slam count is that it's how their peers judge GOAT. There was Uncle Toni recently telling a Spanish newspaper that he thought Nadal would catch and pass Federer before his career was over. It's the experts that's put the emphasis on whoever has the most Slams being the GOAT, so from that standpoint the players have to care. That's why the people who support Nadal always bring up the H2H - how can Fed be the GOAT when he has a losing H2H with Nadal? Yet nobody every asks how can Nadal be the GOAT when he has a losing H2H with Djokovic? Federer too for that matter. As Roger said though - he's done things that Nadal will never do and Nadal's done things things that he will never do. And the same is true of Djokovic. BUT....Roger's still the GOAT, people! LOL!

If they all stopped now, Fed would be the best of the 3. And I have no problem saying that he has genuine claim to the GOAT, if there is but one. But there is a big difference in his H2H history with Nadal, compared to either of their H2Hs with Novak. The primary point v. Novak being how long it took Novak to overtake them, even with his years of dominance, and their weakened years. He never got it when they were in good form. Nadal, on the other hand, has always had Roger's number. It tells its own story how hard Fed fans work to dice up the H2H in ways that favor Roger. You moan about the clay, but even you admit that he's only just passed Rafa in the HC part. Roger has grass, but just 2-1. The late, great Bud Collins, when asked if Roger can be the greatest of all time if he can't beat the best competitor of his era said "No." I think we'll probably land somewhere that Roger has been the GOAT in many ways, and Rafa the clay GOAT. But they're not finished yet.

 

[DarthFed]

Here's a purely speculative thought: Maybe Roger cares less about being GOAT than Mirka does...she had a mediocre career, but is living vicariously through her husband. I mean, wives and all .

You laugh but she's a serious lady and she won't let Roger leave the game early with so much at stake. He is in good hands and I bet it's awhile before she says "it's time to stay home"

 

[Moxie]

Here's a purely speculative thought: Maybe Roger cares less about being GOAT than Mirka does...she had a mediocre career, but is living vicariously through her husband. I mean, wives and all .

Be careful there, Dude...you could get erased like Kevin Spacey for that kind of comment, these days. Ha! (Kidding.) In fairness, Mirka quit early due to injury, was my understanding, but she is very committed to Roger's career, that must be said. Who else would drag 4 kids around the world to keep him happy? Still, by all accounts, Roger still loves playing, and he loves winning. There was nothing about last year to put him off in the short-term.