Federer's Schedule for 2017

[Shivashish Sarkar]

He's taking nearly 2 months off. There will be rust like a 120 year old paint can.

He took seven months off and won Australia. :lolz:

Trust me, there's no rust.

That says a lot about the gutlessness of the tour to allow "Gramps" to come and go as he pleases and still win! Rafa and Roger have done this now; Nadal more so obviously! What's with the players to not even put up much of a fight to make a name for themselves besides being the doormats and meaningless obstacles to the ATG's of this era? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - -

Or maybe Rafa and Roger were actually great to reach the finals at Australia. Giving credit where it's due. Nishikori and Wawrinka did try to stop Roger. Dimitrov gave it his all in the semis. Nothing is actually easy. I know it wasn't the toughest field but there are always 3-4 guys who are willing to do anything to oust you. It's never easier than that. Look at it this way, while you think about Djokovic's upset in the 2nd round, you might be forgetting that Dimi was in such a good form. He did better than Djokovic would probably do this time around. And Wawrinka also did better than Murray.

 

[Fiero425]

He took seven months off and won Australia. :lolz:

Trust me, there's no rust.

That says a lot about the gutlessness of the tour to allow "Gramps" to come and go as he pleases and still win! Rafa and Roger have done this now; Nadal more so obviously! What's with the players to not even put up much of a fight to make a name for themselves besides being the doormats and meaningless obstacles to the ATG's of this era? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - -

Yeah, how gutless of them to let the most talented man who stepped on a tennis court win. Insane. Clearly, Roger had no say in it whatsoever. Meanwhile, Nole winning 18 Masters titles per season and no one bats an eye. ( I know his record is 6, which is still insane) That 2015 season, I swear guys were playing like castrated dogs. Despicable. When Stan beat him at the French they should have given him a cartwheel to carry his balls, just to highlight how bad the others were. How you can turn on someone like that is beyond me; your fave player damn it.

Who said he was my fave? I've always said he's the GOAT, has most of the important records, and will be thought of as the best for the foreseeable future! I'm not turning on him; just stating fact! Roger has 2 players who have a winning record against him and no amount of time will change that! As for Nole winning so much in 2015, it just proved my point when he set all kinds of records beating 30+ top 10 players, being in final after final, and completing his Nole-Slam in '16! :nono :cover :snicker

 

[Puppet Master]

That says a lot about the gutlessness of the tour to allow "Gramps" to come and go as he pleases and still win! Rafa and Roger have done this now; Nadal more so obviously! What's with the players to not even put up much of a fight to make a name for themselves besides being the doormats and meaningless obstacles to the ATG's of this era? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - -

Yeah, how gutless of them to let the most talented man who stepped on a tennis court win. Insane. Clearly, Roger had no say in it whatsoever. Meanwhile, Nole winning 18 Masters titles per season and no one bats an eye. ( I know his record is 6, which is still insane) That 2015 season, I swear guys were playing like castrated dogs. Despicable. When Stan beat him at the French they should have given him a cartwheel to carry his balls, just to highlight how bad the others were. How you can turn on someone like that is beyond me; your fave player damn it.

Who said he was my fave? I've always said he's the GOAT, has most of the important records, and will be thought of as the best for the foreseeable future! I'm not turning on him; just stating fact! Roger has 2 players who have a winning record against him and no amount of time will change that! As for Nole winning so much in 2015, it just proved my point when he set all kinds of records beating 30+ top 10 players, being in final after final, and completing his Nole-Slam in '16! :nono :cover :snicker

Yeah, that one additional cheap win over Olderer surely makes Nogak a greater player. Right. As for Nadal, on how many RGs would Roger be sitting if it wasn't for Nadal? You guessed right, at least 4. Fed is no mug on clay, it's simply the fact that Rafa played like a god in all those finals. You give me any all time great, in whichever form you want, he'd struggle to take a set off Rafa in 2008 for example. However, Nadal's inconsistency on hard courts and grass later on, coupled with Roger's consistency on clay, as there was only one man better than him on the surface during his whole career, doomed him agaisnt Nadal in a sense. I don't know where I am going with this rant, I am writing this post on borrowed time, and in addition to that, this explanation has been done to death.
I can't wait to see some clay tennis. I hope the weather will be lovely in MC. That's all folks!

 

[Frode789]

He's taking nearly 2 months off. There will be rust like a 120 year old paint can.

He took seven months off and won Australia. :lolz:

Trust me, there's no rust.

That says a lot about the gutlessness of the tour to allow "Gramps" to come and go as he pleases and still win! Rafa and Roger have done this now; Nadal more so obviously! What's with the players to not even put up much of a fight to make a name for themselves besides being the doormats and meaningless obstacles to the ATG's of this era? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - -

Not sure if it's just me, but your posts generally makes no sense. Whining about this and that, and promoting your blog in every post. Easy blacklist..

Both Nadal and Federer played great, they deserved to be in that final...

 

[Fiero425]

He took seven months off and won Australia. :lolz:

Trust me, there's no rust.

That says a lot about the gutlessness of the tour to allow "Gramps" to come and go as he pleases and still win! Rafa and Roger have done this now; Nadal more so obviously! What's with the players to not even put up much of a fight to make a name for themselves besides being the doormats & meaningless obstacles to the ATG's of this era?

Not sure if it's just me, but your posts generally makes no sense. Whining about this and that, and promoting your blog in every post. Easy blacklist..

Both Nadal and Federer played great, they deserved to be in that final...

Nyah, it's just you! Admit it, you're just not that deep and can't understand where I'm coming from with 46 years exposure to the sport, ATG players coming and going, the equipment, rule changes, and format! :snicker :cover

 

[El Dude]

Fiero is an acquired taste, but a valued regular of this community. Once you get used to the excessive use of emoticons and the broken record about how crappy the also-rans are, you too will come to enjoy Fiero. :laydownlaughing:devil:basiate

 

[Kieran]

He took seven months off and won Australia. :lolz:

Trust me, there's no rust.

That says a lot about the gutlessness of the tour to allow "Gramps" to come and go as he pleases and still win! Rafa and Roger have done this now; Nadal more so obviously! What's with the players to not even put up much of a fight to make a name for themselves besides being the doormats and meaningless obstacles to the ATG's of this era? uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - -

Yeah, how gutless of them to let the most talented man who stepped on a tennis court win. Insane. Clearly, Roger had no say in it whatsoever.
Meanwhile, No2e winning 18 masters titles per season and no one bats an eye. ( I know his record is 6, which is still insane) That 2015 season, I swear guys were playing like castrated dogs. Despicable.
When Stan beat him at the French they should have given him a cartwheel to carry his balls, just to highlight how bad the others were.
How you can turn on someone like that, is beyond me. Your favourite player damn it.

Wait a minute, wait a minute!

So when Novak wins big, the players play like castrated dogs, but when Roger's winning big it's because of his talent. And you decided this is because...Roger's your favourite player, is that it?

 

[Kieran]

Fiero is an acquired taste, but a valued regular of this community. Once you get used to the excessive use of emoticons and the broken record about how crappy the also-rans are, you too will come to enjoy Fiero. :laydownlaughing:devil:basiate

I like fiero, he's consistent, and he's been watching a long time. He remembers when tennis was played differently. And even though Novak is his current fave, he's not above admitting the field are still lousy...

 

[El Dude]

Can't we say that all of the current greats have benefited from the "gutlessness" of the second tier? I mean, if Novak did, then Roger did, as did Rafa. But isn't it more complex than that? The current greats are far more consistent across surfaces - even Andy Murray - than the greats of the past. Compare Pete Sampras:



To Novak Djokovic:



Now ignore the early and late years of both, as it is natural for a player to be less consistent as he is developing and declining. Notice how much more consistent Novak's results were. We know Pete was a lousy (relatively speaking) clay courter, but it goes beyond clay: he went out in the 4R of the USO twice in the heart of his career (1994 and 1997), and the 3R AO loss (1996). Novak, on the other hand, made it to the QF or later in every Slam from Wimbledon in 2009 to the French Open in 2016.

What is going on here? Several options arise:

1. Novak was simply a better, or at least more consistent, player - both in terms of court types and general consistency.

2. The courts were far less homogenous, leading to more specialists and upsets.

3. The second tier players are more gutless in the current era.

4. The Big Four are simply that much better than the field.

Maybe it is a bit of all four, but I'm thinking that #2 is the primary factor, but it doesn't fully explain why the Big Four have been as dominant as they've been. I think we need to add in the idea that they're simply that good, but also--and perhaps more importantly--that there's a bit of a snowball effect in terms of their confidence, which in turn feeds into the so-called "gutlessness" of the second tier. Winning begets winning. The homogeneity of the surfaces has enabled the success of the current greats, which in turn has made them confident on all surfaces, which in turn has improved their overall level.

Now we have seen cracks as they've started to age, which will continue. Rafa is no longer a good grass court player, and Roger is diminished on clay. But again, this is entirely age-related.

 

[Kieran]

In brief, because I'm pushed for time, but yes, #2 is the primary factor, with #3 being a huge factor too. Maybe "gutless" is too explicit a term, but basically it covers it. I recall second rate players turning up at wimbo in the 80's and 9's shouting big claims and scrapping like junkyard animals to scalp a Borg, Becker or Sampras. Now, they gurn for selfies at the net with their heroes after flopping timidly on the big occasion. And yes, in a tough era, so many records don't fall at the same time, as if it's almost inevitable.

And yeah, that includes 9 FO's...

 

[Fiero425]

In brief, because I'm pushed for time, but yes, #2 is the primary factor, with #3 being a huge factor too. Maybe "gutless" is too explicit a term, but basically it covers it. I recall second rate players turning up at Wimbledon in the 80's and 9's shouting big claims and scrapping like junkyard animals to scalp a Borg, Becker or Sampras. Now, they burn for selfies at the net with their heroes after flopping timidly on the big occasion. And yes, in a tough era, so many records don't fall at the same time, as if it's almost inevitable.

And yeah, that includes 9 FO's...

Exactly! :cover :nono

 

[Puppet Master]

Yeah, Fiero is a true self proclaimed historian of the game. With evey right though.
Does anyone read Men's tennis forum?
There is a poster, goes by the name of pepita1964, she is CRAAAAZY. Just go there and read a few of her posts. All those conspiracies with sponsors, ATP council, Federer, Nadal and who knows what else. She is a Fed fan though.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Looks like all speculation is over. I hear from multiple (but not highly reliable) sources that Federer has officially withdrawn from both Madrid and Rome Masters Tourneys . But, he plans on playing RG. He will start practicing on clay two weeks before the start of RG, but only on practice courts; no warm up tourneys.

I am sure it will get confirmed (by more reliable sources) in the next day or two.

It is almost 24 hours since I posted this message. However, the traditional and respectable sports media don't seem to have any report about this. There is no word about this on Fed's official home page his facebook page or twitter. So, this may be fake news.

The official entry list used to be decided six weeks before the tourney start date in the past. Nowadays, they have changed that rule. The entry list gets now decided only four weeks in advance of the tourneys.

So, we will know the official entry list of Madrid only when Houston Starts (coming Monday, i.e., in a couple of days) and we will know the official entry list of Rome only when Monte Carlo starts (on April 17th).

 

[lob]

Not sure where this belongs but since this thread started with Roger's schedule, I'm posting it here.

Guys, I need a bit of help here. I went back and saw the last set of 2014 Wimbledon final and I couldn't help feeling that that Roger 'deserved' to lose. Obviously, I was reflexively comparing him to the Roger that played the 5th set in AO17. Here is what I saw:

- not anywhere near as aggressive as he was this year. Not actively trying to finish points but waiting for an opportunity.
- overusing slice backhand. It was his go to shot on the backhand side. He had a drive BH but I didn't see the whole variety of BHs he has been routinely using this year.
- staying behind the baseline instead of hugging it like he has been doing this year.
- service return was much weaker may be because of the BH again.
- not swinging freely and not going for his shots.
- his return game was essentially at the mercy of the server. Naturally, he made more unforced errors on big points because he knew he'd get very few.

All that left me with the question. Why did he not try these changes earlier? It's like a switch turned on in his tennis brain all of a sudden this year. Hope it stays on :huh:. Also, what was the role of the new racket?

 

[Fiero425]

Not sure where this belongs but since this thread started with Roger's schedule, I'm posting it here.

Guys, I need a bit of help here. I went back and saw the last set of 2014 Wimbledon final and I couldn't help feeling that that Roger 'deserved' to lose. Obviously, I was reflexively comparing him to the Roger that played the 5th set in AO17. Here is what I saw:

- not anywhere near as aggressive as he was this year. Not actively trying to finish points but waiting for an opportunity.
- overusing slice backhand. It was his go to shot on the backhand side. He had a drive BH but I didn't see the whole variety of BHs he has been routinely using this year.
- staying behind the baseline instead of hugging it like he has been doing this year.
- service return was much weaker may be because of the BH again.
- not swinging freely and not going for his shots.
- his return game was essentially at the mercy of the server. Naturally, he made more unforced errors on big points because he knew he'd get very few.

All that left me with the question. Why did he not try these changes earlier? It's like a switch turned on in his tennis brain all of a sudden this year. Hope it stays on :huh:. Also, what was the role of the new racket?

Nole was choking like a dog; he'd been up 2 breaks in the 4th and lost the TB when in control there as well! I hated that it even went 5! The same thing almost happened at the '15 USO final; up 2 breaks in the 4th, lost one, but was able to close out the match! I think Novak is still ready to beat his old rivals Rafa and Roger; making me feel he lost a couple to Stan and Andy due to missing Fedal at crucial events and times where he still could rise to the occasion and overcome their mystique! He's fallen on hard times with desire and injury while they were away last season, but he continues to own Rafa it seems; not losing a set to him in 7 or 8 matches! Roger only has the advantage on a fast indoor court or Cinci Masters, but he still has to be playing well to overcome Nole! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Can't we say that all of the current greats have benefited from the "gutlessness" of the second tier? I mean, if Novak did, then Roger did, as did Rafa. But isn't it more complex than that? The current greats are far more consistent across surfaces - even Andy Murray - than the greats of the past. Compare Pete Sampras:



To Novak Djokovic:



Now ignore the early and late years of both, as it is natural for a player to be less consistent as he is developing and declining. Notice how much more consistent Novak's results were. We know Pete was a lousy (relatively speaking) clay courter, but it goes beyond clay: he went out in the 4R of the USO twice in the heart of his career (1994 and 1997), and the 3R AO loss (1996). Novak, on the other hand, made it to the QF or later in every Slam from Wimbledon in 2009 to the French Open in 2016.

What is going on here? Several options arise:

1. Novak was simply a better, or at least more consistent, player - both in terms of court types and general consistency.

2. The courts were far less homogenous, leading to more specialists and upsets.

3. The second tier players are more gutless in the current era.

4. The Big Four are simply that much better than the field.

Maybe it is a bit of all four, but I'm thinking that #2 is the primary factor, but it doesn't fully explain why the Big Four have been as dominant as they've been. I think we need to add in the idea that they're simply that good, but also--and perhaps more importantly--that there's a bit of a snowball effect in terms of their confidence, which in turn feeds into the so-called "gutlessness" of the second tier. Winning begets winning. The homogeneity of the surfaces has enabled the success of the current greats, which in turn has made them confident on all surfaces, which in turn has improved their overall level.

Now we have seen cracks as they've started to age, which will continue. Rafa is no longer a good grass court player, and Roger is diminished on clay. But again, this is entirely age-related.

1) But, people need to consider that Nole also benefitted from Rafa's lack of form mid-2014 onwards especially in 2015 and 2016. And that lack of form did make those years that much less tough.

2) Look at Pete Sampras' slam-winning span - 12 years
Djokovic's slam winning span - 8.5 years (as of now)
On the same note, Roger's slam-winning span as of now - 13.5 years (as of now)

Here, slam-winning span only considers the time elapsed between the first slam and the last slam of a player. The density of titles is not factored into, because the time between first and last slams should be considered simply in its own right, its a noteworthy statistic.

Djokovic has had two seasons of utter greatness. That does speak much in favour of his candidacy for GOAT. But, I would say longevity is another factor. And players should be given their points for longevity also. In order for Djokovic to match Pete's slam-winning span, he should win his last slam at least as late as in Australian Open 2020. If he would want to match Roger's longevity he would have to win his last slam at least as late as in Wimbledon 2021 (provided Roger doesn't win another grand slam, otherwise this date gets pushed further).

IMO, unless Djokovic matches Roger's longevity, I wouldn't think he should be called the GOAT. And that is in addition to beating Roger's slam record.

Djokovic's 'weak era' in 2015 and 2016 is comparable to Roger's 'weak era' in 2005-2006.

IMHO, though.

 

[lob]

Nole was choking like a dog; he'd been up 2 breaks in the 4th and lost the TB when in control there as well! I hated that it even went 5! The same thing almost happened at the '15 USO final; up 2 breaks in the 4th, lost one, but was able to close out the match! I think Novak is still ready to beat his old rivals Rafa and Roger; making me feel he lost a couple to Stan and Andy due to missing Fedal at crucial events and times where he still could rise to the occasion and overcome their mystique! He's fallen on hard times with desire and injury while they were away last season, but he continues to own Rafa it seems; not losing a set to him in 7 or 8 matches! Roger only has the advantage on a fast indoor court or Cinci Masters, but he still has to be playing well to overcome Nole! :angel: :dodgy:

Sure, but all this has been discussed to death. Novak got a hang of Roger more or less only after the latter crossed 29. The Roger of 2011/12 could still go toe toe with Nole anywhere except AO. As to choking, hey Roger's chokes against Nole are equally stellar and outstanding! Nadal was able to take out Nole in USO13 on a hardcourt. In any event, choking is not a badge of honor!

To me, where Nole exceeds Fedal is in his insane, sick consistency 2011 through 2015, week in and week out 365/7/24. Still, Nole became Nole because he had to deal with those two. His winning record against Fedal cannot blind us to his losses to Stan, Murray and even Nishikori. All those losses came in his prime.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[Frode789]

Maybe time to get back to topic? A lot of off-topic chat here now....

So yesterday, after Match for Africa, Federer pretty much confirmed his clay court schedule. (After Miami final he said "probably", so we didn't know for sure.)

- "See you at the French Open".

So:
A) Not playing Rome or Madrid Masters.
B) But thankfully he is playing RG, which some thought he might even skip to be 100% for grass season.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Finally, tennis.com publishes the news that Fed had withdrawn from both Madrid and Rome . This means something as withdrawing requires action on Fed's part.

Having said that, he can always get a wild card to play in Rome, if he feels like that in the last moment.

But, I don't think he would be such frivolous about withdrawing and cost someone else a wildcard.

So, we will see him only at RG.

 

[Busted]

Not sure where this belongs but since this thread started with Roger's schedule, I'm posting it here.

Guys, I need a bit of help here. I went back and saw the last set of 2014 Wimbledon final and I couldn't help feeling that that Roger 'deserved' to lose. Obviously, I was reflexively comparing him to the Roger that played the 5th set in AO17. Here is what I saw:

- not anywhere near as aggressive as he was this year. Not actively trying to finish points but waiting for an opportunity.
- overusing slice backhand. It was his go to shot on the backhand side. He had a drive BH but I didn't see the whole variety of BHs he has been routinely using this year.
- staying behind the baseline instead of hugging it like he has been doing this year.
- service return was much weaker may be because of the BH again.
- not swinging freely and not going for his shots.
- his return game was essentially at the mercy of the server. Naturally, he made more unforced errors on big points because he knew he'd get very few.

All that left me with the question. Why did he not try these changes earlier? It's like a switch turned on in his tennis brain all of a sudden this year. Hope it stays on :huh:. Also, what was the role of the new racket?

You have to remember that Roger only started playing with the 97 sq in racket full-time in Jan 2014. How many other players make racket changes and immediately make SF at AO, R16 at FO and F at W and SF at USO, win 73 matches and 5 titles? Stan made a racket change in 2011 and promptly fell from #14 to #29. It took him 2 years to get comfortable with the racket - and Norman - and get back into the Top 10. Roger said himself that he wasn't "super comfortable" with the new racket until this year. He also told Tennis Channel that he just didn't have the belief to drive the backhand more often because he used to shank so much with the smaller headed racket. The fact that he was even in 2 the Wimbledon final was testament to his talent - if not his belief in the new racket. He also said he brought in Edberg so he could start playing more aggressive tennis - and he did that in 2015 and got to the Wimbledon and US Open finals.

But - why is anyone surprised that Roger lost these matches? He's considered "past his prime," right? Older players in all sports pull their punches and over-think things that used to flow and come easily. Again, back to something Roger said about himself when asked about similarities with Kyrgios - maybe he has TOO MANY OPTIONS? Most players have A and B - sometimes C. Roger has A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H - and sometimes the whole damned alphabet.

Also, shouldn't the guy who is IN HIS PRIME and 6 years younger win these matches? Isn't it a testament to Djokovic's improved mental tenacity? And isn't he now in the exact same downward slide that happened to Roger, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi and every other great champion? Actually it's worse, but you get what I mean - he's not the player he was and now that he's shown vulnerabilities other players will come for him the same way Istomin did - and the same way he came for Roger.