Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future

[Kieran]

Hey people, can the posters/mods please keep this thread on topic?

It has been diverted to a Nadal - Djokovic discussion.

Thanks!

Respectfully,
masterclass

I've tried my best, but people keep disagreeing with me! :snigger

 

[ClayDeath]

Hey people, can the posters/mods please keep this thread on topic?

It has been diverted to a Nadal - Djokovic discussion.

Thanks!

Respectfully,
masterclass

I am still trying to figure this out.



I just saw the last couple or 3 posts.



how did we get to nadal and nole from roger`s topic.


this is roger`s house people. and roger says stop talking about nole and nadal at his place.

he doesn't like it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This, as well as your above post, essentially suggest that you can't do something until you actually do it. If after the 2007 Wimbledon final, someone said Nadal can't beat Federer at Wimbledon, and someone took umbrage with it, would they have been right?

Being able to do something and doing it are two different things. Novak CAN beat Nadal in Paris. He's done it everywhere else and he's done it on clay, including Monte Carlo, where Nadal was even more invincible than he was in Paris. So yeah, while he wouldn't be favored if he is to play Nadal at Roland Garros, and it's certainly an uphill battle, all evidence suggests that he CAN do it. He's beaten him at all other 3 slams, and 3 clay masters. This is indication that he CAN do it. Denying it based on the fact that he hasn't done it yet is backwards logic. Because "can do it" and "has done it" are two different issues. Your argument backs up the latter, not the former.

No, this is wrong thinking. Beating Rafa at RG is the hardest ask in tennis. Novak has taken five swipes at it - and not done it. Winning in MC, Madrid or Rome against Rafa ISN'T an indication that he CAN win in Paris. It never has been, and so can't be used as proof.

Now, I don't mind people thinking he can, because of course we won't know until he loses against him again (or even beats him) but I do mind lazy terminology, and saying it's "delusional" to think that Novak can't beat Rafa in Paris is silly. Is it equally delusional to think that Roger can't beat Rafa in Paris? He reached the final in 2011 with a much greater pedigree than Novak, and faced a waaaay below confidence Rafa...

It's delusional to think Federer can still beat Rafa in Paris. That ship has sailed. Novak is a different issue. I don't disagree with any of the arguments you suggested, but none of them prove that Novak CAN'T beat him in Paris, that's my point.

 

[Kieran]

This, as well as your above post, essentially suggest that you can't do something until you actually do it. If after the 2007 Wimbledon final, someone said Nadal can't beat Federer at Wimbledon, and someone took umbrage with it, would they have been right?

Being able to do something and doing it are two different things. Novak CAN beat Nadal in Paris. He's done it everywhere else and he's done it on clay, including Monte Carlo, where Nadal was even more invincible than he was in Paris. So yeah, while he wouldn't be favored if he is to play Nadal at Roland Garros, and it's certainly an uphill battle, all evidence suggests that he CAN do it. He's beaten him at all other 3 slams, and 3 clay masters. This is indication that he CAN do it. Denying it based on the fact that he hasn't done it yet is backwards logic. Because "can do it" and "has done it" are two different issues. Your argument backs up the latter, not the former.

No, this is wrong thinking. Beating Rafa at RG is the hardest ask in tennis. Novak has taken five swipes at it - and not done it. Winning in MC, Madrid or Rome against Rafa ISN'T an indication that he CAN win in Paris. It never has been, and so can't be used as proof.

Now, I don't mind people thinking he can, because of course we won't know until he loses against him again (or even beats him) but I do mind lazy terminology, and saying it's "delusional" to think that Novak can't beat Rafa in Paris is silly. Is it equally delusional to think that Roger can't beat Rafa in Paris? He reached the final in 2011 with a much greater pedigree than Novak, and faced a waaaay below confidence Rafa...

It's delusional to think Federer can still beat Rafa in Paris. That ship has sailed. Novak is a different issue. I don't disagree with any of the arguments you suggested, but none of them prove that Novak CAN'T beat him in Paris, that's my point.

We'll agree to disagree, to keep it on topic, okay?

 

[ClayDeath]

there is always nadal`s house right next door.


keep the interesting debate going there.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

maybe roger new wand will be like superman getting himself a new pair of underpants..

as roger flies his way to the shanghai masters and wtf, straight setting djokovic/nadal/murray repeatedly on the way.

 

[Kieran]

Is Roger definitely going with the bigger stick?

What effect do people think it'll have? Sampras seems to think it's a good idea. If it gives Roger more zing, I think it's a great idea...

 

[ClayDeath]

go roger. show them all what you can do.

never ever give up.

 

[Front242]

Is Roger definitely going with the bigger stick?

What effect do people think it'll have? Sampras seems to think it's a good idea. If it gives Roger more zing, I think it's a great idea...

He's got a much bigger stick than that Nadal fella. Another notch in his favour of GOATness: bigger stick Ask your wife

 

[Kieran]

Is Roger definitely going with the bigger stick?

What effect do people think it'll have? Sampras seems to think it's a good idea. If it gives Roger more zing, I think it's a great idea...

He's got a much bigger stick than that Nadal fella. Another notch in his favour of GOATness: bigger stick Ask your wife

You calling Mirka a "stick?" I'm sure she'd thank ya!

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Is Roger definitely going with the bigger stick?

What effect do people think it'll have? Sampras seems to think it's a good idea. If it gives Roger more zing, I think it's a great idea...

he is trying out new wands again in the gap between uso and shanghai..its a shame he had a back injury when he was trying a new one on those small clay tourneys he entered..it clouded the scene.

but now he is fitter, so a few weeks behind the scenes without cheap comments from everyone and their goose should mean he settles on a new massive wand finally..

 

[Front242]

Is Roger definitely going with the bigger stick?

What effect do people think it'll have? Sampras seems to think it's a good idea. If it gives Roger more zing, I think it's a great idea...

he is trying out new wands again in the gap between uso and shanghai..its a shame he had a back injury when he was trying a new one on those small clay tourneys he entered..it clouded the scene.

but now he is fitter, so a few weeks behind the scenes without cheap comments from everyone and their goose should mean he settles on a new massive wand finally..

He better start waving the wand soon. Hocus pocus - get some damned focus.

 

[ClayDeath]

does everybody agree that he needs to start experimenting with the bigger racquet right in the middle of the season?

 

[Kieran]

does everybody agree that he needs to start experimenting with the bigger racquet right in the middle of the season?

Extreme times call for extreme measures. However, he went back to his familiar racket for the US Open. Now he can take out the other one and give it a proper whirl for the rest of the year. Why not, eh?

 

[ClayDeath]

I think he has to start incorporating more doubles into his game plan.

it can only help. they have 40 year olds winning slams in doubles.

winning matches will do his confidence some good and he may even enjoy the social aspect of doubles.

general masterclass also mentioned this in his blog.

he needs to find the right partner for doubles and then get on with the business of winning matches.

 

[DarthFed]

It is not the middle of the season so it is the perfect time to try a new racquet. And there is no reason not to give it a whirl unless he wants to sit out the rest of the year. Next it is time to give Annacone his walking papers.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is the best time to switch racquets and he should switch immediately.
Further, he should never go back no matter how the immediate results look.
He should stick with it, get used to it and play with it for the rest of his
career.

 

[ClayDeath]

atp insiders disagree. jim courier said it was a bad idea.

and the people he was talking to agreed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

atp insiders disagree. jim courier said it was a bad idea.

and the people he was talking to agreed.

Sampras said it was a good idea. There are always going to be conflicting opinions, even among the experts. That's why I we shouldn't take their word as gospel.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think Roger switching rackets now is good, this season is gone Major wise why not use these next few months to adjust without risking the prep to a Major.

If Roger struggles next year I could see him do a Sampras and retiring after a good Major run ( even a SF ) and end things on a high note in 2014 or 2015.

He most resembles as far as consistency and longevity Chris Evert in a way. Though of course he wasn't dominated the way Martina dominated Chrissie , still.
Chris Evert knew it was time when she retired but the bigger issue is if Roger can adjust to being top 10 or 15 without being top 4. Only he can answer that question.

I don't think Roger should care about ranking as much as peaking for the Majors. If he can't play his best at the AO it will be a huge wake up call.