Federer's Schedule for 2017

[GameSetAndMath]

Federer has announced that he will be playing in the Hopman Cup partnering with Belinda Bencic. For those unaware, Hopman Cup is an ITF event in which eight countries are invited to participate. They are divided into two groups of four countries each. In each group, they play in round robin to pick a winner. The winners of the two groups play against each other in the finals. Each tie consists of a men's singles, ladies' singles (this should explain why he is not teaming up with Martina Hingis) and mixed doubles match.

This being an ITF event, Roger will not get any ranking points from this event. This event will be held from 1st January to 7th January 2017. The event will be held at Perth, in Western Australia. This also means that Roger will not be playing at Brisbane (or at Doha or Chennai as well) as it is held during the same week.

This being an ITF event, It is unlikely that Fed gets any "appearance fee" in this event. Most probably, his contract with Brisbane would have expired (meaning, if he wanted to play in Brisbane, they probably would not give him appearance fee anymore) and he just wanted a change. The good thing about this event is Roger is guaranteed to play (win or lose) three singles matches and three mixed doubles matches (and one more of each if Switzerland makes it to the finals). So, this will give him guaranteed match practice before AO without much pressure.

Roger's full schedule for 2017 is not yet released and do not expect it to come out until a few weeks after WTF.

 

[atttomole]

I thought he would have retired by then.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed is ranked #16 right now. But, he will lose 150 points from Brisbane before AO. He won't be adding any points as Hopman cup is an ITF event. So, Fed will not even be a top 16 seed when AO rolls around.

 

[Fiero425]

Fed is ranked #16 right now. But, he will lose 150 points from Brisbane before AO. He won't be adding any points as Hopman cup is an ITF event. So, Fed will not even be a top 16 seed when AO rolls around.

True, but I'll bet he'll get a bump into the top 8 in seeding due to his past record! They'll assume he's ready or wouldn't bother playing! IMO, it probably isn't fair to other players, but that's what tenure does for you; hence the other rules concerning years on tour and matches played! When they're old and gray, I'm sure some benefit will come to them if they last that long! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed is ranked #16 right now. But, he will lose 150 points from Brisbane before AO. He won't be adding any points as Hopman cup is an ITF event. So, Fed will not even be a top 16 seed when AO rolls around.

True, but I'll bet he'll get a bump into the top 8 in seeding due to his past record! They'll assume he's ready or wouldn't bother playing! IMO, it probably isn't fair to other players, but that's what tenure does for you; hence the other rules concerning years on tour and matches played! When they're old and gray, I'm sure some benefit will come to them if they last that long! :angel: :dodgy:

Looks like you are trying to "stir the pot" as you often do. There will not be any bumping in the seeding for Fed. The only grand slam where the seeding does not follow the ranking is Wimbledon and even there it is determine using a formula to give grass events more weight. No rules will be bent just because Fed is Maestero.

 

[El Dude]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Teams are set for Hopman Cup 2017 . Fed in Group A. Will play against Germany, France and Britain. Group B has Australia, Spain, USA and Czechs. Only interesting match will be Fed vs. Zverev in Group A. If Fed reaches finals, might play against Kyrgios.

 

[Fiero425]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

What would you say, if Fed comes back and clinches #1 next year, which is not impossible (considering Nole is down and Fed owns Andy and no one else is anywhere near these two)
although improbable.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

What would you say, if Fed comes back and clinches #1 next year, which is not impossible (considering Nole is down and Fed owns Andy and no one else is anywhere near these two)
although improbable.

 

[Fiero425]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

What would you say, if Fed comes back and clinches #1 next year, which is not impossible (considering Nole is down and Fed owns Andy and no one else is anywhere near these two)
although improbable.

Oh, dream on! :nono :clap :snicker :laydownlaughing :eyepop :spacecadet:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

From a recent interview of Fed.

Federer said he has made no plans beyond Indian Wells for next year, and he adds that he isn’t really sure what to expect.

“First I have to see how it goes,” he said. “But I think Hopman Cup, Australian Open, Dubai and Indian Wells are fixed. For other tournaments I have not yet enrolled.”

 

[Fiero425]

From a recent interview of Fed.

Federer said he has made no plans beyond Indian Wells for next year, and he adds that he isn’t really sure what to expect.

“First I have to see how it goes,” he said. “But I think Hopman Cup, Australian Open, Dubai and Indian Wells are fixed. For other tournaments I have not yet enrolled.”

Is this the 1st of many "backtracks" to come! He can't play forever! The men aren't that bad to allow him to just saunter back onto the tour and take over! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[GameSetAndMath]

From a recent interview of Fed.

Federer said he has made no plans beyond Indian Wells for next year, and he adds that he isn’t really sure what to expect.

“First I have to see how it goes,” he said. “But I think Hopman Cup, Australian Open, Dubai and Indian Wells are fixed. For other tournaments I have not yet enrolled.”

Is this the 1st of many "backtracks" to come!

Actually, in order to avoid "backtracks" only, he is not releasing the full schedule right now. There is always uncertainty when coming from a long injury break and I think he is just being very pragmatic when he says, "first, I have to see how it goes".

 

[Carol]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

What would you say, if Fed comes back and clinches #1 next year, which is not impossible (considering Nole is down and Fed owns Andy and no one else is anywhere near these two)
although improbable.

You have already done that twice :snicker

 

[Front242]

He's showing confidence

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is my suggested schedule for Federer.

At this age, he would need longer breaks between tourneys. Also, it is not worth for him to chase #1 now. It should be all about trying to win a few big tourneys and may be a GS. Last year, he played only seven tournaments. So, this year he should not play more than double that in order to make sure that he can continue playing for a few years. Hence, I have limited him to 14 tourneys, not including WTF. That would be four tournaments less than the full schedule of 18 tournaments from which points earned count for ranking.

0. Hopman Cup (not counting this)
1. AO
Four weeks of recovery.
2. Dubai
3. IW
Four weeks of recovery.
4. MC
Three weeks break.
5. Rome
One week prep for RG
6. RG
7. Stuttgart
8. Halle
One week prep for Wimby
9. Wimbledon
Four weeks of R&R.
10. Cincinnatti
One week prep for USO
11. USO
Four weeks of R&R.
12. Shanghai
One week break.
13. Basel
14. Paris
One week prep for WTF.
15. WTF- London.
Six weeks of R&R.

He should skip Miami as skipping it gives him two weeks of rest while missing only one tourney.
He should play Monte-Carlo as he has never won it before and also as it would tell him early where he stands on clay now (if terrible should skip clay season completely, otherwise proceed as stated). He should skip Madrid as he has already won it before and also as it is not a good idea to play back to back Masters before GS at his age. For the same reason, he should skip Montreal again this year as it would save him for USO.

 

[El Dude]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Sorry, Fiero, for missing this one. And sorry, because you're so off base on this one! For Roger to have quite at the age Borg did, 2006 would have been his last year. Maybe we stretch it another year, his last truly great one, and he retires after 2007. Or perhaps after 2012? Are you saying that everything he's done since has tarnished his legacy? That's hogwash. It isn't like he's doing a Hewitt and ranked in the 20-40 range for most of his career. Since his last Slam and couple months at #1 in 2012, he's remained one of the top players in the sport.

You're off-base about Rosewall and Connors as well. When exactly should Rosewall have retired? He won his last Slam in 1972 at age 37, but then went on to reach the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974 at age 39, not to mention Slam semifinals and quarterfinals into his 40s. He got slaughtered by Jimmy Connors in both finals, but not after beating some top players to get there. We can compare this to Roger in 2015, but he didn't exactly get slaughtered by Novak. And of course if Jimmy Connors had retired after, say, 1983 or '84, we never would have gotten to see his epic run at the 1991 US Open.

I think your basic fallacy is that you seem to think Slams are everything. Yes, they're the top prize, but they aren't everything. There's also the joy of the game and, if you're a mega-star like Roger or Rafa, financial incentive for playing.

You also seem fixated on Borg as the archetype of greatness. I don't agree with that. I hate to say it but Borg kind of chickened out. Johnny Mac surpassed him and rather than re-rallying--like Roger did after 2008 Wimbledon--and climbing his way back up to the top and winning a few more, he quit. In fact, I think you could make an argument that retiring early actually lessened his greatness.

An example from another sport is Michael Jordan, who retired and came back not once but twice. When he came back the first time after almost two years trying to play baseball, he resumed his status as the top player in the game. When he back the second time after a few years off in his mid-to-late 30s, and played a couple seasons at age 38-39, he was still a good player but a shadow of his former self. But no one says, "Man, those last two years really tarnished his legacy." That's just hogwash.

But the bottom line is this: the sport is better for having Roger Federer play for as long as he possibly can, whether he's winning Slams or not, is #1 or not. I mean, I highly doubt he'd keep playing if he couldn't maintain a top 10 ranking and at least a decent chance at winning Slams, but we haven't seen anything like that from him yet. The closest we was 2013, but he recovered from his back injury and adjusted his game.

So yeah, keep playing, Roger! We're going to really miss you when you're gone.

 

[Fiero425]

Can't wait to see the Old Master give it another go.

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Sorry, Fiero, for missing this one. And sorry, because you're so off base on this one! For Roger to have quit at the age Borg did, '06 would have been his last year. Maybe we stretch it another year, his last truly great one, and he retires after '07. Or perhaps after 2012? Are you saying that everything he's done since has tarnished his legacy? That's hogwash. It isn't like he's doing a Hewitt and ranked in the 20-40 range for most of his career. Since his last Slam and couple months at #1 in 2012, he's remained one of the top players in the sport.

You're off-base about Rosewall and Connors as well. When exactly should Rosewall have retired? He won his last Slam in 1972 at age 37, but then went on to reach the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974 at age 39, not to mention Slam semifinals and quarterfinals into his 40s. He got slaughtered by Jimmy Connors in both finals, but not after beating some top players to get there. We can compare this to Roger in 2015, but he didn't exactly get slaughtered by Novak. And of course if Jimmy Connors had retired after, say, 1983 or '84, we never would have gotten to see his epic run at the 1991 US Open.

I think your basic fallacy is that you seem to think Slams are everything. Yes, they're the top prize, but they aren't everything. There's also the joy of the game and, if you're a mega-star like Roger or Rafa, financial incentive for playing.

You also seem fixated on Borg as the archtype of greatness. I don't agree with that. I hate to say it but Borg kind of chickened out. Johnny Mac surpassed him and rather than re-rallying--like Roger did after 2008 Wimbledon--and climbing his way back up to the top and winning a few more, he quit. In fact, I think you could make an argument that retiring early actually lessened his greatness.

An example from another sport is Michael Jordan, who retired and came back not once but twice. When he came back the first time after almost two years trying to play baseball, he resumed his status as the top player in the game. When he came back the second time after a few years off in his mid-to-late 30s, and played a couple seasons at age 38-39, he was still a good player but a shadow of his former self. But no one says, "Man, those last two years really tarnished his legacy." That's just hogwash.

But the bottom line is this: the sport is better for having Roger Federer play for as long as he possibly can, whether he's winning Slams or not, is #1 or not. I mean, I highly doubt he'd keep playing if he couldn't maintain a top 10 ranking and at least a decent chance at winning Slams, but we haven't seen anything like that from him yet. The closest we was 2013, but he recovered from his back injury and adjusted his game.

So yeah, keep playing, Roger! We're going to really miss you when you're gone.

Still reading your book here, but from the first comment, no one said anything about Roger quitting at 26! I'm pretty sure I've said plenty of times that a good time for him to have dropped off the tour was after winning his last Wimbledon! True enough he was still #1 and he might have won another major if lucky, but so far it hasn't happened! So far making those finals has done nothing to elevate his standing! "A few more?" NO, it's been 2 majors and the length of time between them has lengthened! Winning a Masters 1000 here and there won't do it either! All he's done is allowed 2 other GOAT's to surpass him in the H2H! Jimmy's epic run in '91 at the USO was only epic to his fans! He didn't beat anyone; barely surviving a player not in the top 50; Paul Haarhuis in the 2nd RD! So what? At a certain level like Borg, Connors, and now Federer, winning majors is the only reason to hang on!

BTW, Borg didn't chicken out! He asked for some time to rest due to the mental exhaustion of being the top player for so long! The silly ATP officials wouldn't give him a couple months instead of lying like today's players making up injuries to justify their absence! If you think it hurt his legacy, why is it that plenty of people still have him on a pedestal? I don't believe Jordan retired; more like a secret suspension due to his gambling problem! He was given this more having to do with his father being murdered so he wouldn't have to deal with Stern's legitimate gripe against the top basketball player at the time! We'll see if Roger can maintain his status in the top 10, but if you ask me, that wouldn't be that impressive with the pathetic record of the also-rans concerning the Big 4 or 5! :ras:

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I posted this on another site concerning Fed's imminent return:

Fed's the GOAT; got it! Still those H2H's are a killer for people in the know! Two other GOAT's wound up having his #! He might have saved himself the indignity of adding Nole to the list if he had retired after winning that last Wimbledon! I know it might not have made any sense b/c he was #1 & has been able to sustain top form for the most part, but his mystique & legend would have been more like a BORG if he had left on top! That's just my impression of the situation going all the way back to Rosewall and Laver! I've seen the best come & go; some left in a timely fashion like Sampras, Lendl, & Borg while others hung on a lit'l too long, hurting their legacies like Rosewall, Connors, & now Federer! Some say it won't take away from the real #'s & records, but adding on so many extra yrs, it makes a difference to me! If I feel that way, I'm sure some others do as well! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Sorry, Fiero, for missing this one. And sorry, because you're so off base on this one! For Roger to have quit at the age Borg did, '06 would have been his last year. Maybe we stretch it another year, his last truly great one, and he retires after '07. Or perhaps after 2012? Are you saying that everything he's done since has tarnished his legacy? That's hogwash. It isn't like he's doing a Hewitt and ranked in the 20-40 range for most of his career. Since his last Slam and couple months at #1 in 2012, he's remained one of the top players in the sport.

You're off-base about Rosewall and Connors as well. When exactly should Rosewall have retired? He won his last Slam in 1972 at age 37, but then went on to reach the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974 at age 39, not to mention Slam semifinals and quarterfinals into his 40s. He got slaughtered by Jimmy Connors in both finals, but not after beating some top players to get there. We can compare this to Roger in 2015, but he didn't exactly get slaughtered by Novak. And of course if Jimmy Connors had retired after, say, 1983 or '84, we never would have gotten to see his epic run at the 1991 US Open.

I think your basic fallacy is that you seem to think Slams are everything. Yes, they're the top prize, but they aren't everything. There's also the joy of the game and, if you're a mega-star like Roger or Rafa, financial incentive for playing.

You also seem fixated on Borg as the archtype of greatness. I don't agree with that. I hate to say it but Borg kind of chickened out. Johnny Mac surpassed him and rather than re-rallying--like Roger did after 2008 Wimbledon--and climbing his way back up to the top and winning a few more, he quit. In fact, I think you could make an argument that retiring early actually lessened his greatness.

An example from another sport is Michael Jordan, who retired and came back not once but twice. When he came back the first time after almost two years trying to play baseball, he resumed his status as the top player in the game. When he came back the second time after a few years off in his mid-to-late 30s, and played a couple seasons at age 38-39, he was still a good player but a shadow of his former self. But no one says, "Man, those last two years really tarnished his legacy." That's just hogwash.

But the bottom line is this: the sport is better for having Roger Federer play for as long as he possibly can, whether he's winning Slams or not, is #1 or not. I mean, I highly doubt he'd keep playing if he couldn't maintain a top 10 ranking and at least a decent chance at winning Slams, but we haven't seen anything like that from him yet. The closest we was 2013, but he recovered from his back injury and adjusted his game.

So yeah, keep playing, Roger! We're going to really miss you when you're gone.

Still reading your book here, but from the first comment, no one said anything about Roger quitting at 26! I'm pretty sure I've said plenty of times that a good time for him to have dropped off the tour was after winning his last Wimbledon! True enough he was still #1 and he might have won another major if lucky, but so far it hasn't happened! So far making those finals has done nothing to elevate his standing! "A few more?" NO, it's been 2 majors and the length of time between them has lengthened! Winning a Masters 1000 here and there won't do it either! All he's done is allowed 2 other GOAT's to surpass him in the H2H! Jimmy's epic run in '91 at the USO was only epic to his fans! He didn't beat anyone; barely surviving a player not in the top 50; Paul Haarhuis in the 2nd RD! So what? At a certain level like Borg, Connors, and now Federer, winning majors is the only reason to hang on!

BTW, Borg didn't chicken out! He asked for some time to rest due to the mental exhaustion of being the top player for so long! The silly ATP officials wouldn't give him a couple months instead of lying like today's players making up injuries to justify their absence! If you think it hurt his legacy, why is it that plenty of people still have him on a pedestal? I don't believe Jordan retired; more like a secret suspension due to his gambling problem! He was given this more having to do with his father being murdered so he wouldn't have to deal with Stern's legitimate gripe against the top basketball player at the time! We'll see if Roger can maintain his status in the top 10, but if you ask me, that wouldn't be that impressive with the pathetic record of the also-rans concerning the Big 4 or 5! :ras:

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

Does making slams your priority after a certain stage render winning one less appealing to followers thereafter? I hope that's not your point.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk