Rod Laver: 'Roger Federer could still win a Grand Slam'

[britbox]

The Rocket still things Fed can win another major and predicts WImbledon as the place it's going to happen in 2016.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/roger-federer-could-win-next-grand-slam-wimbledon-rod-laver-1506290

Can the Maestro pull one more out of the hat?

 

[ClayDeath]

Roger has a chance in London. he needs a slight opening.

he needs somebody to upset djokovic. he also needs a kind draw.


his 18th slam could come at Wimbledon.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger has surprised a lot before but I think he's done at majors. He's had some chances the past couple years to do some damage and he is only older.

 

[masterclass]

Roger only needs to have an excellent day against Djokovic.

Roger has the best top grass level of any player even at his age.

Murray said that he himself was playing well, and that Roger would have beaten anyone that day that he was beaten last year, and everyone could see that.

The problem for Roger is that he can't repeat that great play on demand, it comes and goes.

Murray then Djokovic is a tall order. Maybe Djokovic then Murray would be better. Who knows?

He has to hope that he plays well when he meets the toughest opponents, that's it.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[ClayDeath]

was it Muscles (rosewall) at age 39 in 1974 that made the finals at Wimbledon?

 

[Rides]

Federer is the legit #3 right now (injury notwithstanding/status unknown) and therefore does have a shot at another Slam. I wonder - if he was given the choice - which he would rather (if he could only have one): an 8th Wimbledon or a Olympic Gold medal in singles?

 

[masterclass]

Roger only needs to have an excellent day against Djokovic.

Roger has the best top grass level of any player even at his age.

Murray said that he himself was playing well, and that Roger would have beaten anyone that day that he was beaten last year, and everyone could see that.

The problem for Roger is that he can't repeat that great play on demand, it comes and goes.

Murray then Djokovic is a tall order. Maybe Djokovic then Murray would be better. Who knows?

He has to hope that he plays well when he meets the toughest opponents, that's it.

Respectfully,
masterclass

was it Muscles (rosewall) at age 39 in 1974 that made the finals at Wimbledon?

Yes. Unfortunately for the 39 year old Rosewall, he was taken to the woodshed by 21 year old Connors, 6-1,6-1,6-4.
Then in the US Open the same year, Rosewall again made the final against then 22 year old Connors, and was demolished 6-1, 6-0, 6-1, the worst beating in a major final in the Open Era.

But despite the beating he took, one has to give the old man credit for making the finals. The younger guys and very good players like Newcombe and Stan Smith couldn't beat Rosewall.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[britbox]

Federer is the legit #3 right now (injury notwithstanding/status unknown) and therefore does have a shot at another Slam. I wonder - if he was given the choice - which he would rather (if he could only have one): an 8th Wimbledon or a Olympic Gold medal in singles?

That's an interesting one... personally, right now I'd think he'd go for the Wimbledon option because it's coming up to 4 years since the last major.

Fed is a legit #3 and I'd probably favour him over #2 Andy Murray if it was a slam final.

 

[ClayDeath]

Yes. Unfortunately for the 39 year old Rosewall, he was taken to the woodshed by 21 year old Connors, 6-1,6-1,6-4.
Then in the US Open the same year, Rosewall again made the final against then 22 year old Connors, and was demolished 6-1, 6-0, 6-1, the worst beating in a major final in the Open Era.

But despite the beating he took, one has to give the old man credit for making the finals. The younger guys and very good players like Newcombe and Stan Smith couldn't beat Rosewall.

Respectfully,
masterclass

agreed. credit where is credit is due. at least Muscles worked very hard on his fitness and was hell bent on trying to win more majors.

Jimmy was red hot those days and also had the youth on his side. jimmy was no slacker either. he would go on to be in the top 20 for 2 decades.

 

[ClayDeath]

loving this thread.

 

[DarthFed]

That's an interesting one... personally, right now I'd think he'd go for the Wimbledon option because it's coming up to 4 years since the last major.

Fed is a legit #3 and I'd probably favour him over #2 Andy Murray if it was a slam final.

I don't think there is any question he'd go for the Wimbledon option even if you didn't have a situation where Rafa and Nole are closing in on his record.

I'd favor Roger over Murray in pretty much every circumstance but Roger in a major final scares me right now. I know we had this conversation last year but I honestly feel that if it was reversed last year (Nole in the semi of Wimbledon and Murray in the final) we may have had the same outcome. Roger really wet the bed in that final.

 

[EdbergsGhost]

I agree with C.D. He would need a favorable draw and somehow have Novak out of the tournament.

 

[britbox]

I agree with C.D. He would need a favorable draw and somehow have Novak out of the tournament.

The stars may have to align a little - would certainly make it easier. But I still don't think it's inconceivable that Federer could beat Novak on grass... he wouldn't be the favourite but I don't think you can totally rule it out.

 

[britbox]

I don't think there is any question he'd go for the Wimbledon option even if you didn't have a situation where Rafa and Nole are closing in on his record.

I'd favor Roger over Murray in pretty much every circumstance but Roger in a major final scares me right now. I know we had this conversation last year but I honestly feel that if it was reversed last year (Nole in the semi of Wimbledon and Murray in the final) we may have had the same outcome. Roger really wet the bed in that final.

He did, but he was a lot better in the US Open final... I think he'll be less tight next time around... particularly if he's not playing Novak.

 

[Moxie]

If you're in it, and still making finals, you've got a shot. But I agree, he's not beating a healthy Novak in best of 5 anymore. And he'd probably need a draw that doesn't wear him out. All that said, he's had some good chances in the last couple of years, and has lost a bit of his champion's timing for peaking at the right time. I honestly thought, the way he'd been playing the whole grass season last year, that he'd win Wimbledon, esp. after the brilliant SF v Murray, but he dropped off some in the final, and it wasn't all Novak that caused that, imo. I don't see it happening without a lot of stars aligning.

 

[Moxie]

The stars may have to align a little - would certainly make it easier. But I still don't think it's inconceivable that Federer could beat Novak on grass... he wouldn't be the favourite but I don't think you can totally rule it out.

We both chose the phrase "stars align" at essentially the same moment, though we disagree about how much. Last USO, a Tennis Channel commentator asked the question of ex-players also commentating. Specifically, not "could" Roger win another major, but "will" he. P-Mac and Navratilova were turning themselves inside out to keep saying that he could, while ducking the actual question. Of course he can...he's won 17 of them. Only Jim Courier ventured that, no, he won't, because of the good opportunities lost of late. 2014 USO was his example. Novak was out in the first SF of the day, and 'all' Roger had to do was take out Cilic to get a very exhausted Nishikori in the final. (In addition, his draw in that tournament was so soft it was jokingly posited that it could have been made by Mirka.) I'll give you that Cilic was very good in that SF, and there's not much you can do with a big serve that's working. But the point is, how many times will all the things that need to happen keep coming together for Roger? I'll give you, he's lived under a pretty lucky star much of his career, but he doesn't even seem to be able to capitalize on that anymore, at the Majors. TBH, I think he has a better chance at the Olympics, where the competition is more random, and it's best of 3.

 

[isabelle]

The Rocket still things Fed can win another major and predicts WImbledon as the place it's going to happen in 2016.

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/roger-federer-could-win-next-grand-slam-wimbledon-rod-laver-1506290

Can the Maestro pull one more out of the hat?

I think old Roddy's dreaming !!! It's over for Mr Vavrinec especially after his recent surgery

 

[EdbergsGhost]

The stars may have to align a little - would certainly make it easier. But I still don't think it's inconceivable that Federer could beat Novak on grass... he wouldn't be the favourite but I don't think you can totally rule it out.

I wouldn't "totally" rule out the possibility, but neither would I say there is a likelihood of him winning if they meet.

With all due respect to the Rocket, in this regard I rather doubt the man's objectivity. Laver adores Federer. Before the (Aus Open) semifinal with Djokovic, one of the player/commentators mentioned Rod had asked him if he thought Fed would win. The commentator didn't want to hurt the man's feelings and said, "There's always a chance." During the first two sets, the camera was panning across the crowd as it often does. A few times it zoomed in on the old champion as he was watching. He looked as though he was at the funeral of a dear friend.

 

[DarthFed]

The stars didn't really align at all last Wimbledon. He did get Murray in the semi and Nole in the final. Murray would've had a damn good chance vs. Nole at Wimbledon, still does actually. The stars aligning talk has been used by Fed detractors for the better part of a decade now.

On grass he can still control his own destiny but would I expect him to win another one at this point? Definitely not and the reasoning is much like Courier's. A lot of good opportunities the past couple years and he didn't get it done and now he will be 35 in August.

 

[DarthFed]

We both chose the phrase "stars align" at essentially the same moment, though we disagree about how much. Last USO, a Tennis Channel commentator asked the question of ex-players also commentating. Specifically, not "could" Roger win another major, but "will" he. P-Mac and Navratilova were turning themselves inside out to keep saying that he could, while ducking the actual question. Of course he can...he's won 17 of them. Only Jim Courier ventured that, no, he won't, because of the good opportunities lost of late. 2014 USO was his example. Novak was out in the first SF of the day, and 'all' Roger had to do was take out Cilic to get a very exhausted Nishikori in the final. (In addition, his draw in that tournament was so soft it was jokingly posited that it could have been made by Mirka.) I'll give you that Cilic was very good in that SF, and there's not much you can do with a big serve that's working. But the point is, how many times will all the things that need to happen keep coming together for Roger? I'll give you, he's lived under a pretty lucky star much of his career, but he doesn't even seem to be able to capitalize on that anymore, at the Majors. TBH, I think he has a better chance at the Olympics, where the competition is more random, and it's best of 3.

What lucky star is this?