Could (one of) Roger's goal(s) be 100 titles?

[El Dude]

I'm guessing that, more than anything else, he wants another Slam. But looking at some of the other possible accomplishments, I wonder if 100 titles is on his list. With Istanbul he's now up to 85, 9 behind Ivan Lendl and 23 behind Jimmy Connors. While it is theoretically possible that he surpasses Jimmy, it will be very difficult. If we take out 2013, he's won 4-6 titles each year from 2008 to 2014, and probably 2015 as he already has 3. So if we say he averages about 5 a year, he'd have to play at least four more years after 2015 AND maintain that pace...which would make him 38 or 39 when he retires.

But 100 is possible. I think, at the least, he wants to pass Lendl - and if he gets to 95, if he's still playing well in a couple years, why not go for 100? This would likely mean more "gimme" 250/500 tournaments, which would probably require less Masters. Something to consider.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

ha I was thinking this very thing this evening and thought "hmmm could be an interesting thread on tennisfrontier"

i think yes it could be a goal, he could 'work the calendar' just like he did this week. win an atp250 with not many other star players and cash in with some easier titles.

 

[Moxie]

Personally, I think Roger should play whatever he fancies, and whatever works for him in his prep for the big ones. Also, he seems to be enjoying "tennis tourism." Good on him! But, and at the risk of being a wet blanket, doesn't he risk a certain sneering if he racks up a bunch of 250s late career, just to meet a number? Vilas's numbers on clay are looked at somewhat askance because he played so many small ones. And basically everyone understands that Davydenko's ranking was rather inflated by playing tournaments that no big players went to. Getting to 100 wins is kind of a tennis-nerd goal for him, don't you think? I don't know how much he would enjoy just picking low-hanging fruit. That said, whatever blows his skirt up, and keeps him hungry to play, I'm fine with.

 

[Federberg]

I think that Roger has so heavily loaded his title count with the highest quality tournaments, that it would take the most churlish critics to make anything of so called padding. In any case the guy is a champion, he'll keep trying to win the big ones. I suspect he might try to schedule even smarter going forward and target the faster tournaments more. If that's a slam, a 1000, 500 or 250 so be it

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Personally, I think Roger should play whatever he fancies, and whatever works for him in his prep for the big ones. Also, he seems to be enjoying "tennis tourism." Good on him! But, and at the risk of being a wet blanket, doesn't he risk a certain sneering if he racks up a bunch of 250s late career, just to meet a number? Vilas's numbers on clay are looked at somewhat askance because he played so many small ones. And basically everyone understands that Davydenko's ranking was rather inflated by playing tournaments that no big players went to. Getting to 100 wins is kind of a tennis-nerd goal for him, don't you think? I don't know how much he would enjoy just picking low-hanging fruit. That said, whatever blows his skirt up, and keeps him hungry to play, I'm fine with.

First of all, I don't think Roger is doing a "padding operation" to reach 100 titles. These are just
wishes/questions of some fans who created this thread. If he reaches 100 titles, it would happen
naturally as opposed to some strategic calculations.

Having said that, I do expect him to play many smaller tourneys in various esoteric places.
That would primarily be with an intention to "make hay while sun shines". Collecting big
appearance fees to play in small tourneys is better than playing in exhibition matches to make
money. This way he gets genuine match practice and also gets to fatten the wallet.

 

[Moxie]

Personally, I think Roger should play whatever he fancies, and whatever works for him in his prep for the big ones. Also, he seems to be enjoying "tennis tourism." Good on him! But, and at the risk of being a wet blanket, doesn't he risk a certain sneering if he racks up a bunch of 250s late career, just to meet a number? Vilas's numbers on clay are looked at somewhat askance because he played so many small ones. And basically everyone understands that Davydenko's ranking was rather inflated by playing tournaments that no big players went to. Getting to 100 wins is kind of a tennis-nerd goal for him, don't you think? I don't know how much he would enjoy just picking low-hanging fruit. That said, whatever blows his skirt up, and keeps him hungry to play, I'm fine with.

First of all, I don't think Roger is doing a "padding operation" to reach 100 titles. These are just
wishes/questions of some fans who created this thread. If he reaches 100 titles, it would happen
naturally as opposed to some strategic calculations.

Having said that, I do expect him to play many smaller tourneys in various esoteric places.
That would primarily be with an intention to "make hay while sun shines". Collecting big
appearance fees to play in small tourneys is better than playing in exhibition matches to make
money. This way he gets genuine match practice and also gets to fatten the wallet.

I think that's essentially what I said.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just to clarify, I don't think Roger would do several of those ATP 250s in the same year. It would probably be just 2 or 3 per year.

To summarize, his main goal would not be to make 100 mark. Obviously, his main goal would be to get at least one more GS somewhere or other before retiring. A good way of getting "almost guaranteed" practice lasting over multiple matches is to play in smaller tourneys.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Having said that, I do expect him to play many smaller tourneys in various esoteric places.
That would primarily be with an intention to "make hay while sun shines". Collecting big
appearance fees to play in small tourneys is better than playing in exhibition matches to make
money. This way he gets genuine match practice and also gets to fatten the wallet.

this. plus he gets to see some new places, that also seems to be something he actually enjoys.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I think Roger is not interested in the number of tournament wins. I do not believe that number is even on his radar. I think at this point he would give away 10 of the 85 he has (none-slam ones of course) to add another slam or two to the total.

 

[Federberg]

I think Roger is not interested in the number of tournament wins. I do not believe that number is even on his radar. I think at this point he would give away 10 of the 85 he has (none-slam ones of course) to add another slam or two to the total.

Some recent comments Roger has made about what defines greatness would argue with your belief Murat. Let me be clear... winning slams at this stage of his career is a priority for him, but he doesn't believe the slam count is all that matters. If I remember correctly he mentioned longevity as well as number of tournament wins as being just as important. I think he was very respectful of both Connors and Lendl for their trophy count for example. It's not clear to me he would give away tournament wins, my feeling was... going forward if he has a chance to win 5 non slams or one slam, he would take the slam but it's an entirely different thing to talk about giving up the titles in the bank. That's his overall legacy right there..

 

[tented]

I think Roger is not interested in the number of tournament wins. I do not believe that number is even on his radar. I think at this point he would give away 10 of the 85 he has (none-slam ones of course) to add another slam or two to the total.

This seems right. He's slam-centric (?) these days. If he happens to surpass Lendl or Connors while playing various level tournaments, that's great, but it isn't a specific goal, IMO.