ABN AMRO, Rotterdam, Netherlands, APT 500

[Federberg]

To be clear I’m saying the higher chance he thinks he has at Wimbledon the less likely he’ll want to play RG

 

[Moxie]

In case you have not been reading Fed Porn, with today's victory, Fed broke three separate but related records.

1. Oldest player to reach #1 (previous holder Agassi)
2. Longest gap between losing and reclaiming #1 (previous holder Agassi)
3. Longest period between reaching #1 for the first time and the last time (previous holder Rafa).

Moreover, the margin in each of the above categories is quite large and so it appears that all three records are probably safe.

Congratulations to the Grand Old Man of tennis. I'm a bit mad at him for the spite and malice of snagging it off of Rafa just when Nadal was within a couple of weeks of McEnroe, but I get it...he was so close, and with the Sunshine Double coming up, he could have fallen farther behind. (I'm kidding, of course...he owes Nadal nothing, and did it for himself.)

I agree with you that Roger should be keen to win here, too. Why put in so much effort and not take the trophy? It wasn't only about #1. He's got a solid shot. With 100 titles in sight and the Connors record in view, he doesn't want to waste a SF or F.

I also get all the back-and-forth about clay. (Forget I'm a Rafa fan...I don't worry about him beating Nadal at RG.) The clay points would help his cause for YE#1, but could hurt his cause at SW19. And I do take @Busted's point: if you don't play a Major you can't win it. The double-career Slam is still elusive. I guess a lot will become clearer in the next few weeks, post-IW/Miami.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

To be clear I’m saying the higher chance he thinks he has at Wimbledon the less likely he’ll want to play RG

I disagree. I agree with you when the estimated chances from 50 to say 80%, he would probably want to make sure that he can capitalize on his chances and thus cautiously skip RG. On the other hand, If he thinks he has higher chance than that (i.e., virtually assured), he may feel that there is no risk involved and venture into RG.

 

[DarthFed]

Year end #1 shouldn't even be a thought until Paris and that's if it's truly within reach or within danger if he's ahead.

Aside from that I'd still prefer he skips clay especially if his knees don't feel great on the surface as he mentioned last year. No reason to risk Wimbledon where he will always have a solid chance to win. Just follow last year aside from one obvious difference and now that he got #1 we don't have to worry about a similar mistake.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Hilarious tweet by Roger

 

[I.Haychew]

Aside from that I'd still prefer he skips clay especially if his knees don't feel great on the surface as he mentioned last year. No reason to risk Wimbledon where he will always have a solid chance to win. Just follow last year aside from one obvious difference and now that he got #1 we don't have to worry about a similar mistake.

My understanding is that clay is the most "forgiving" surface for the joints. I get that clay tennis is more of a war of attrition, but why is clay so bad for Federer's knees?

 

[DarthFed]

My understanding is that clay is the most "forgiving" surface for the joints. I get that clay tennis is more of a war of attrition, but why is clay so bad for Federer's knees?

You are correct that clay is generally easier on the body but Fed has apparently had issues with it since his injuries in 2016:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sp...s/knee-concerns-behind-federers-clay-decision

 

[I.Haychew]

You are correct that clay is generally easier on the body but Fed has apparently had issues with it since his injuries in 2016:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sp...s/knee-concerns-behind-federers-clay-decision

Interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[Moxie]

You are correct that clay is generally easier on the body but Fed has apparently had issues with it since his injuries in 2016:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sp...s/knee-concerns-behind-federers-clay-decision

Both clay and grass give the most cushion for the body/knees, but clay asks you to run/slide/change direction a lot and grass requires a lot of deep bending, due to the low bounce. I guess each player assesses what is harder on their body and best for their game.

 

[Federberg]

I disagree. I agree with you when the estimated chances from 50 to say 80%, he would probably want to make sure that he can capitalize on his chances and thus cautiously skip RG. On the other hand, If he thinks he has higher chance than that (i.e., virtually assured), he may feel that there is no risk involved and venture into RG.

I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that greater confidence is the same as certainty. But that’s not the case. The more confident you get about achieving a certain goal if you have the opportunity to go for it, the less likely an experienced hand like Roger will put himself in a situation where the opportunity goes. To him Wimbledon is never in the bank, that’s where you’re erring I think

 

[El Dude]

Here's another thought on why maybe Roger should play Roland Garros: How many more Slams is he going to be at a level high enough to be competitive? Let's say he remains at a high level throughout the rest of 2018 - that's three. Let's also give him the benefit of the doubt and say he remains at a really good level in 2019, maybe slipping a hair. So that's four more, or seven. Let's say that by 2020 he has declined enough and some young players have reached prime for so that all of a sudden the window has closed. Maybe he has four more chances, but they're not as good as 2018 (his best chance) or 2019 (still pretty good).

Or we could look at it by age:

Age 36: 2 Slams (2018 RG, Wim)
Age 37: 4 Slams (2018-19, USO, AO, RG, Wim)
Age 38: 4 Slams (2019-20, USO, AO, RG, Wim)
etc

How many of those will he have a good chance to win, both because of his own level and competition? Taking RG out reduces those 10 chances to 7, or 6 to 4 if we only count age 36-37.

Or let's consider Roland Garros alone. In 2018, Novak might not be ready to play at a high level. Stan seems a bit diminished. Rafa is still great but could be upset by a Thiem. In 2019, Roger will be a year older, Novak could be back, Thiem and Zverev and other young players will be more in their primes, and the window will close.

To put it another way: 2018 might be Roger's best chance to win RG a second time.

Anyhow, I don't know what the right thing is for Roger to do, and I'm guessing he doesn't really know either. He'll play out Rotterdam, the Sunshine Double, and then decide from there. I wouldn't be surprised to see him play a clay Masters and Roland Garros, or skip clay outright. My gut says he'll at least play RG, though.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Here's another thought on why maybe Roger should play Roland Garros: How many more Slams is he going to be at a level high enough to be competitive? Let's say he remains at a high level throughout the rest of 2018 - that's three. Let's also give him the benefit of the doubt and say he remains at a really good level in 2019, maybe slipping a hair. So that's four more, or seven. Let's say that by 2020 he has declined enough and some young players have reached prime for so that all of a sudden the window has closed. Maybe he has four more chances, but they're not as good as 2018 (his best chance) or 2019 (still pretty good).

Or we could look at it by age:

Age 36: 2 Slams (2018 RG, Wim)
Age 37: 4 Slams (2018-19, USO, AO, RG, Wim)
Age 38: 4 Slams (2019-20, USO, AO, RG, Wim)
etc

How many of those will he have a good chance to win, both because of his own level and competition? Taking RG out reduces those 10 chances to 7, or 6 to 4 if we only count age 36-37.

Or let's consider Roland Garros alone. In 2018, Novak might not be ready to play at a high level. Stan seems a bit diminished. Rafa is still great but could be upset by a Thiem. In 2019, Roger will be a year older, Novak could be back, Thiem and Zverev and other young players will be more in their primes, and the window will close.

To put it another way: 2018 might be Roger's best chance to win RG a second time.

Anyhow, I don't know what the right thing is for Roger to do, and I'm guessing he doesn't really know either. He'll play out Rotterdam, the Sunshine Double, and then decide from there. I wouldn't be surprised to see him play a clay Masters and Roland Garros, or skip clay outright. My gut says he'll at least play RG, though.

Yeah, maybe he should play RG before it's too late. He might have a chance. But, I feel a grand slam loss against Nadal will not be something sweet at this stage. You know this last laugh thing. I know it's stupid but it might actually hurt his mind before Wimbledon. Why do mistakes?

 

[britbox]

Darth is right... he said he didn't feel right on the surface.

It's Russian roulette - risk the clay and potentially mess up Wimbledon preparations...

I'm pretty sure he plays Roland Garros one more time before he hangs up the stick in any event.

 

[I.Haychew]

Dimitrov is having a helluva time closing out the first set. He's trying to hand the break to Goffin, but Goffin just won't take it.

 

[I.Haychew]

...and he finally closes it out after about an 8-9 minute service game.

 

[I.Haychew]

Goffin takes a shot to the face/eye and retires from the match. Such a shame. Hope he's okay.

 

[Federberg]

Darth is right... he said he didn't feel right on the surface.

It's Russian roulette - risk the clay and potentially mess up Wimbledon preparations...

I'm pretty sure he plays Roland Garros one more time before he hangs up the stick in any event.

I suspect that the year we see him play Roland Garros again it will probably be his farewell tour. As long as he thinks he can win Wimbledon I doubt he will. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm thinking