Federer's Schedule for 2014

[GameSetAndMath]

It seems a strange thing to plan a relative hiatus when you're 31 years old, in order to preserve yourself for a better year when you're going on 33. I know that as you get older it takes longer to recover but even still, this seems an odd one to me. I imagine Pete Sampras is nicely rested and ready to return to the tour now, given how long he took to recover from his 2002 US Open win...

Well, it is more of an admission of old age catching up. He was listening to his body
and I guess he felt, if he went all out in 2013, he probably would have to call it quits after
2013 and so took 2013 easy. In that sense it is a self preservation technique. Obviously,
it does not mean that he will become 2007 fed in 2014. I think his burnout was more
physical than mental.

I think his 2014 would certainly be decent because of that wise decision (it might
not even exist without that decision). I am not saying he is going to win a grand slam
in 2014 (although I would not be surprised if he does).

I think he will bring himself up to top 4 by end of 2014, win a grand slam in 2015,
go down hill (fall below 8) in 2016 and retire sometime in 2016 (as he indicated).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It seems a strange thing to plan a relative hiatus when you're 31 years old, in order to preserve yourself for a better year when you're going on 33. I know that as you get older it takes longer to recover but even still, this seems an odd one to me. I imagine Pete Sampras is nicely rested and ready to return to the tour now, given how long he took to recover from his 2002 US Open win...

If that was seriously his approach, which I doubt, it'd be beyond stupid. Theoretically Roger will be worse by the day and his chances will decrease.

I think it is just talk with him, he was awful last year and is trying to reason with it. And the back is becoming a common excuse too. The back was clearly an issue at points during the season but there was a lot more to his struggles. I guess in 2014 we will see just how much the bad play in '13 was due to the back.

Didn't you read my post. The interview I cited was given by him in Feb. 2013, before
anyone of us knew he would suck this bad.

 

[DarthFed]

It seems a strange thing to plan a relative hiatus when you're 31 years old, in order to preserve yourself for a better year when you're going on 33. I know that as you get older it takes longer to recover but even still, this seems an odd one to me. I imagine Pete Sampras is nicely rested and ready to return to the tour now, given how long he took to recover from his 2002 US Open win...

If that was seriously his approach, which I doubt, it'd be beyond stupid. Theoretically Roger will be worse by the day and his chances will decrease.

I think it is just talk with him, he was awful last year and is trying to reason with it. And the back is becoming a common excuse too. The back was clearly an issue at points during the season but there was a lot more to his struggles. I guess in 2014 we will see just how much the bad play in '13 was due to the back.

Didn't you read my post. The interview I cited was given by him in Feb. 2013, before
anyone of us knew he would suck this bad.

Ok I see that now, but it has been said often the past year. He played a reduced schedule after playing a lot in 2012. That doesn't mean he wasn't taking 2013 seriously or expected to suck. But he realized playing so much in consecutive years likely wouldn't have been good in 2013 and would especially be bad in 2014.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I now officially give up on Fed publishing his schedule for 2014. I don't think he
will do so, at least not until AO is over.

 

[herios]

I now officially give up on Fed publishing his schedule for 2014. I don't think he
will do so, at least not until AO is over.

What is the big deal, no need to scrutinize it for the large public anymore, he became just another top 10 player. Does anybody follow Berdych or Tsonga schedule?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Where is the dislike button?

 

[Fiero425]

It seems a strange thing to plan a relative hiatus when you're 31 years old, in order to preserve yourself for a better year when you're going on 33. I know that as you get older it takes longer to recover but even still, this seems an odd one to me. I imagine Pete Sampras is nicely rested and ready to return to the tour now, given how long he took to recover from his 2002 US Open win...

If that was seriously his approach, which I doubt, it'd be beyond stupid. Theoretically Roger will be worse by the day and his chances will decrease.

I think it is just talk with him, he was awful last year and is trying to reason with it. And the back is becoming a common excuse too. The back was clearly an issue at points during the season but there was a lot more to his struggles. I guess in 2014 we will see just how much the bad play in '13 was due to the back.

Didn't you read my post. The interview I cited was given by him in Feb. 2013, before
anyone of us knew he would suck this bad.

Ok I see that now, but it has been said often the past year. He played a reduced schedule after playing a lot in 2012. That doesn't mean he wasn't taking 2013 seriously or expected to suck. But he realized playing so much in consecutive years likely wouldn't have been good in 2013 and would especially be bad in 2014.

Watching TCC "Tennis Year In Review" and it's worse than I thought! It informed me that Roger reached only 3 finals, won 1 title, & missed playing a major final since 2001-02 beginning! It's a wonder he's in the top 10! I had no idea! :nono :cry

 

[DarthFed]

Making 1 GS semifinal all but guarantees a top 10 place. It really doesn't take a whole lot at this point when you stop and think about it.

 

[DarthFed]

I now officially give up on Fed publishing his schedule for 2014. I don't think he
will do so, at least not until AO is over.

What is the big deal, no need to scrutinize it for the large public anymore, he became just another top 10 player. Does anybody follow Berdych or Tsonga schedule?

Enjoy Roger's scrub status for now (I know you have). He will be back to top 4 at least this year.

 

[Fastgrass]

16 is enough.

 

[Moxie]

I now officially give up on Fed publishing his schedule for 2014. I don't think he
will do so, at least not until AO is over.

What is the big deal, no need to scrutinize it for the large public anymore, he became just another top 10 player. Does anybody follow Berdych or Tsonga schedule?

Enjoy Roger's scrub status for now (I know you have). He will be back to top 4 at least this year.

Darth! I love seeing the optimism from you when pushed to that level of insult.

@herios: It IS a bit dismissive to call Federer 'just another top 10 player,' when you know he has an extensive fan base that does care a lot about his schedule and his next year. It is partly this attitude that makes even non-fans hope he has a better 2014 than his 2013. He is a very great tennis player, and many of us are hoping to see still-great tennis from him in the next 2-3 years.

16 is enough.

That would be 17. And as a Nadal fan, I agree that it's enough.

 

[Fiero425]

I now officially give up on Fed publishing his schedule for 2014. I don't think he
will do so, at least not until AO is over.

What is the big deal, no need to scrutinize it for the large public anymore, he became just another top 10 player. Does anybody follow Berdych or Tsonga schedule?

Enjoy Roger's scrub status for now (I know you have). He will be back to top 4 at least this year.

Darth! I love seeing the optimism from you when pushed to that level of insult.

@herios: It IS a bit dismissive to call Federer 'just another top 10 player,' when you know he has an extensive fan base that does care a lot about his schedule and his next year. It is partly this attitude that makes even non-fans hope he has a better 2014 than his 2013. He is a very great tennis player, and many of us are hoping to see still-great tennis from him in the next 2-3 years.

16 is enough.

That would be 17. And as a Nadal fan, I agree that it's enough.

I think like Sampras, Federer will surprise us all and take one more major title; more than likely another Wimbledon! That's his best bet; esp. if other players are slipping around like this past tourney! When Madrid Open was on blue Hard-Tru a couple years ago, he flourished while Nole and Rafa went down in flames early! :blush: :angel:

 

[Moxie]

I now officially give up on Fed publishing his schedule for 2014. I don't think he
will do so, at least not until AO is over.

What is the big deal, no need to scrutinize it for the large public anymore, he became just another top 10 player. Does anybody follow Berdych or Tsonga schedule?

Enjoy Roger's scrub status for now (I know you have). He will be back to top 4 at least this year.

Darth! I love seeing the optimism from you when pushed to that level of insult.

@herios: It IS a bit dismissive to call Federer 'just another top 10 player,' when you know he has an extensive fan base that does care a lot about his schedule and his next year. It is partly this attitude that makes even non-fans hope he has a better 2014 than his 2013. He is a very great tennis player, and many of us are hoping to see still-great tennis from him in the next 2-3 years.

16 is enough.

That would be 17. And as a Nadal fan, I agree that it's enough.

I think like Sampras, Federer will surprise us all and take one more major title; more than likely another Wimbledon! That's his best bet; esp. if other players are slipping around like this past tourney! When Madrid Open was on blue Hard-Tru a couple years ago, he flourished while Nole and Rafa went down in flames early! :blush: :angel:

I thought Federer surprised us last year with the Wimbledon win after 2 ½ years, and regaining #1. I'd be shocked if he got another Major, but I don't think he's at all done and dusted. Getting back to #4 will be key, I think. Then, the Draw Gods could smile on him...

 

[Fiero425]

What is the big deal, no need to scrutinize it for the large public anymore, he became just another top 10 player. Does anybody follow Berdych or Tsonga schedule?

Enjoy Roger's scrub status for now (I know you have). He will be back to top 4 at least this year.

Darth! I love seeing the optimism from you when pushed to that level of insult.

@herios: It IS a bit dismissive to call Federer 'just another top 10 player,' when you know he has an extensive fan base that does care a lot about his schedule and his next year. It is partly this attitude that makes even non-fans hope he has a better 2014 than his 2013. He is a very great tennis player, and many of us are hoping to see still-great tennis from him in the next 2-3 years.

16 is enough.

That would be 17. And as a Nadal fan, I agree that it's enough.

I think like Sampras, Federer will surprise us all and take one more major title; more than likely another Wimbledon! That's his best bet; esp. if other players are slipping around like this past tourney! When Madrid Open was on blue Hard-Tru a couple years ago, he flourished while Nole and Rafa went down in flames early! :blush: :angel:

I thought Federer surprised us last year with the Wimbledon win after 2 ½ years, and regaining #1. I'd be shocked if he got another Major, but I don't think he's at all done and dusted. Getting back to #4 will be key, I think. Then, the Draw Gods could smile on him...

The subject matter about the rest of the tour falling on their faces came up! In the old days, the #1 player was upset at least once or twice in a major! #2-4 were also vulnerable due to the surface! That just doesn't happen these days! Due to the headcases amongst this group of losers, none of them have fulfilled their promise! We're still waiting for Del Po to do more than taking Nole or Roger to 5 sets, maybe getting to within 2 points of a match against Rafa only to give it all back! It's just disturbing to see this happen time and time again! If Roger can get a little help from the 2nd tier and take out Nole and Rafa, it would help him immensely; no doubt! :nono

 

[DarthFed]

17 might not be enough soon. It goes without saying he should have won more anyways considering some of the collapses he had in semis and finals.

You can say Roger has done everything now but if Rafa gets to 18 then suddenly he hasn't done everything and his career is a whole hell of a lot less great. You have to think for the future.

 

[Fiero425]

17 might not be enough soon. It goes without saying he should have won more anyways considering some of the collapses he had in semis and finals.

You can say Roger has done everything now but if Rafa gets to 18 then suddenly he hasn't done everything and his career is a whole hell of a lot less great. You have to think for the future.

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

 

[Moxie]

17 might not be enough soon. It goes without saying he should have won more anyways considering some of the collapses he had in semis and finals.

You can say Roger has done everything now but if Rafa gets to 18 then suddenly he hasn't done everything and his career is a whole hell of a lot less great. You have to think for the future.

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

 

[Fiero425]

17 might not be enough soon. It goes without saying he should have won more anyways considering some of the collapses he had in semis and finals.

You can say Roger has done everything now but if Rafa gets to 18 then suddenly he hasn't done everything and his career is a whole hell of a lot less great. You have to think for the future.

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

It's hard to equate FO and AO majors to Wimbledon and USO due to so many players over the years who actually skipped Paris and Kooyong way back when! I grew up with Stefan Edberg the only top player who never missed a major; no matter his health issues! Nowadays the big 4 make it to almost every major except if they're injured; Nole & Roger anyway! The majors are balancing out, but Wimbledon on grass is still the barometer of greatness! A while back 3 of the 4 majors were on grass! It's not me, but the so called experts that say it; just a consensus on their part it seems! Sorry! :nono Borg was great just winning the FO, but all those Wimbledons is why he's really remembered and put on a pedestal! :clap

 

[DarthFed]

Number of slams is most important, and then there are things such as if a player wins a calendar year slam or non calendar year slam that might add to it. Being king of 2 of the majors could add to it as well, right now there is only one undisputed king at a major and it is Nadal at RG. Nole will almost certainly have AO when all is said and done. Roger is tied at Wimbledon and badly underachieved in New York and is tied there with Sampras and Connors. If he is winning another one it will be at one of those venues and would break the tie.

 

[Moxie]

17 might not be enough soon. It goes without saying he should have won more anyways considering some of the collapses he had in semis and finals.

You can say Roger has done everything now but if Rafa gets to 18 then suddenly he hasn't done everything and his career is a whole hell of a lot less great. You have to think for the future.

Not to be contrarian just for the hell of it, but Rafa's quality of wins just isn't there! Roger taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 7 overall is more historic than Rafa's 8 FO's! Add on 5 straight USO's, quite a few other major titles and Roger will always rate higher as far as I'm concerned! Rafa can aquire more majors, but his inconsistency and broken seasons should weigh against him even with his winning record over the definitive GOAT! What kind of career would Rafa have had if not for clay? :nono uzzled :angel:

Oh, go ahead and be contrarian. These are the fallow times in the tennis season, so why not argue? I think it's unfair to say that the "quality" of Rafa's wins is not there. All majors should be weighted equally. And especially because a lot of Rafa's big wins have been against Federer (and Djokovic.)

Why is Federer's record at Wimbledon better than Rafa's at RG? Grass is less and less a surface that modern players do well on. At least Rafa has to compete against clay-courters on clay. There really aren't any grass-court specialists, any more. If you're going to insist that clay is marginal, in the tennis calendar, then you have to accept that grass is even more so.

I will agree that Federer's plethora of wins across the other Slams, besides RG, is impressive. But Nadal has won on all surfaces in Slams, and that is not a puny thing, especially given who he has beaten. And, yes, he has had times of absence due to injury, but his percentage win vis-à-vis participation in Slams is higher than Federer's. If he does play, he's more likely to win. You can't fault a man for an injury.

So I would say that the quality of Nadal's wins in Slams, and MS 1000s has been very high. Yes, there is a preponderance of wins on clay, but clay is still a surface that tennis is played on. And beyond clay, he has also done very well. So what is the argument that you make for his resume being lesser?

It's hard to equate FO and AO majors to Wimbledon and USO due to so many players over the years who actually skipped Paris and Kooyong way back when! I grew up with Stefan Edberg the only top player who never missed a major; no matter his health issues! Nowadays the big 4 make it to almost every major except if they're injured; Nole & Roger anyway! The majors are balancing out, but Wimbledon on grass is still the barometer of greatness! A while back 3 of the 4 majors were on grass! It's not me, but the so called experts that say it; just a consensus on their part it seems! Sorry! :nono Borg was great just winning the FO, but all those Wimbledons is why he's really remembered and put on a pedestal! :clap

I think you're wrong to put together why players used to skip Australia, and if, and why, they skipped RG. Those are two different issues. Australia was too far away. If players skipped RG, and I don't believe as many did, it was because they had no clay chops. I agree that we all think that Wimbledon is the Cathedral of tennis, and the Holy Grail, but let's not kid ourselves that there is anything like a grass game, anymore. S&V is all but dead. Winning on grass proves that a player has an all-around game, but you can't say it means more just because more of the tournaments used to be played on grass. That's just pure nostalgia, or actual blindness to the game as it is played, today.

Number of slams is most important, and then there are things such as if a player wins a calendar year slam or non calendar year slam that might add to it. Being king of 2 of the majors could add to it as well, right now there is only one undisputed king at a major and it is Nadal at RG. Nole will almost certainly have AO when all is said and done. Roger is tied at Wimbledon and badly underachieved in New York and is tied there with Sampras and Connors. If he is winning another one it will be at one of those venues and would break the tie.

I don't understand how you can say that Roger 'badly underachieved' at the USO. He won 5 titles there. What more could you want? You're saying that Djokovic will probably own the AO, but he's still one shy of Roger at the USO. I understand about standards being impossibly high, but it's worth noting what has already been done, and how spectacular it is. And what Nadal and Djokovic are gunning for has still yet to be done. As to Federer, it has already been done.