What Next for Federer? 2017 in Review, and a look ahead

[Murat Baslamisli]

No, I don't think you get to play that game. Giving Roger a MS on grass just because. As I pointed out above, Indoor HC is probably his second-favorite, and it took him ages to win Paris-Bercy. No guarantees for the grass one. And I'm sorry, but I don't have a pity party for him that he hasn't won more MS on HC. He's won 10 Majors on HC. It's not like he's weak there. He just didn't win more. I'll make my point again...the impressive one is Nadal, who only has 3 MS/year on his favorite surface. And yet he is tied for most. What does this tell us?

Hey, no pity from me either, I know he is the best ...But do you realize what you are saying? Nadal has ONLY 3 Masters on his favorite surface a year?? Seriously? Those three equate to what, more than 20 of his Masters on his best surface? I did not bother to count...Roger has ZERO (0) on his best surface ! That's all I am saying. Him being great on every surface does not change the fact that grass is his best surface.

 

[mrzz]

As does Paris. Shocking how long it took him to win it. That's his "fault," if you like.

Nah... I remember years were Paris were medium paced at best, and the timing is terrible for everyone. There is no comparison IMO between Paris and Cincinnati.

I agree, for the current Masters. But if Halle was a Masters, would you not rank it above Cincy?

Good question. Conventional wisdom would say "yes", but even if no one can dispute Federer´s position on the grass scale, I still think the faster the surface the better for him. And I am not sure which one is faster...

If you look at the results, considering that the tour is divided on Halle and Queens, I think the 7 Cincinnati titles (that could well become 8 this year) have more significance than the 9 Halle´s (I mean, in the sense of which surface suits him better).

 

[DarthFed]

Halle is lightning fast, pretty sure it's quicker than Cincy.

 

[Moxie]

Hey, no pity from me either, I know he is the best ...But do you realize what you are saying? Nadal has ONLY 3 Masters on his favorite surface a year?? Seriously? Those three equate to what, more than 20 of his Masters on his best surface? I did not bother to count...Roger has ZERO (0) on his best surface ! That's all I am saying. Him being great on every surface does not change the fact that grass is his best surface.

One second, please: Roger has also been the best on indoor HC for much of his career. Am I wrong about this?

 

[Moxie]

Nah... I remember years were Paris were medium paced at best, and the timing is terrible for everyone. There is no comparison IMO between Paris and Cincinnati.

Oh, I have to say this is boring. I get that Paris is the end of the year, and everyone is a bit spent, and so it was won by other players, but if you're going to complain about the slower indoor HCs, that's a bit of a stretch. And unprovable.

Good question. Conventional wisdom would say "yes", but even if no one can dispute Federer´s position on the grass scale, I still think the faster the surface the better for him. And I am not sure which one is faster...

If you look at the results, considering that the tour is divided on Halle and Queens, I think the 7 Cincinnati titles (that could well become 8 this year) have more significance than the 9 Halle´s (I mean, in the sense of which surface suits him better).

Grass is faster, no? Seriously. Didn't we just work this out at the recent Wimbledon?

 

[DarthFed]

There were a few years in Fed's prime where he didn't even play Paris and at this point it has been changed to a medium/slow-paced indoor HC to match the London surface at YEC.

 

[Moxie]

Hey, no pity from me either, I know he is the best ...But do you realize what you are saying? Nadal has ONLY 3 Masters on his favorite surface a year?? Seriously? Those three equate to what, more than 20 of his Masters on his best surface? I did not bother to count...Roger has ZERO (0) on his best surface ! That's all I am saying. Him being great on every surface does not change the fact that grass is his best surface.

Yes, 3x clay opportunities/year equate to a lot of Masters for Rafa, since he's taken advantage of them. But TMF might have made more hay out of his 6 x MS options per year, especially before Djokovic and Murray started racking them up. Don't try to play that Roger is only good on grass and a bit good on fast HCs. That doesn't run with his record. The fact that he doesn't have more MS than he does simply is what it is.

 

[DarthFed]

Anyways it is a stupid point anyways when certain fans equate MS events to majors. Nole and Rafa can finish with 10 more MS wins and that doesn't equate to an extra slam. That's the race that counts.

 

[Moxie]

There were a few years in Fed's prime where he didn't even play Paris and at this point it has been changed to a medium/slow-paced indoor HC to match the London surface at YEC.

I doubt that any fan equates MS to Majors. But it's all in the mix.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Yes, 3x clay opportunities/year equate to a lot of Masters for Rafa, since he's taken advantage of them. But TMF might have made more hay out of his 6 x MS options per year, especially before Djokovic and Murray started racking them up. Don't try to play that Roger is only good on grass and a bit good on fast HCs. That doesn't run with his record. The fact that he doesn't have more MS than he does simply is what it is.

If you go a bit up and read what I said, it says "Him being great on every surface does not change the fact that grass is his best surface" I know he is great on every surface. Never said otherwise.

 

[Moxie]

If you go a bit up and read what I said, it says "Him being great on every surface does not change the fact that grass is his best surface" I know he is great on every surface. Never said otherwise.

OK but a bit of a fine-point. And actually, you make my point: Federer is very good on HCs. So there should be no whining that there isn't a grass 1000, keeping him for having a better record in Masters. He had a great amount of time that he was tearing through the field, winning Majors. There's no great reason that he shouldn't have been winning the MS as well. But if he cared about them less, for the sake of the Majors, I say good on ya, Rog! Well-chosen. I guess you really can't have everything.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

OK but a bit of a fine-point. And actually, you make my point: Federer is very good on HCs. So there should be no whining that there isn't a grass 1000, keeping him for having a better record in Masters. He had a great amount of time that he was tearing through the field, winning Majors. There's no great reason that he shouldn't have been winning the MS as well. But if he cared about them less, for the sake of the Majors, I say good on ya, Rog! Well-chosen. I guess you really can't have everything.

I was totally content with everything Roger has done 3 -4 years ago but this last year screwed me up

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Bercy is slow. Actually, Shanghai is the second fastest HC Masters (next only to Cincy). But, Fed has not yet won it. However, it is a recent masters and Fed has not played there couple of times or so as well. I think he takes Shanghai this time. He already made an announcement in Chinese telling them he is coming over there to conquer it.

 

[El Dude]

I'm confused, @Moxie: why do you see Rafa as having "over-achieved" in Masters? 22 of his 30 Masters titles were on clay, so he's won only 8 hard Masters - 4 fewer than Andy Murray's hard-court Masters count.

 

[Moxie]

I'm confused, @Moxie: why do you see Rafa as having "over-achieved" in Masters? 22 of his 30 Masters titles were on clay, so he's won only 8 hard Masters - 4 fewer than Andy Murray's hard-court Masters count.

"Only" 8 masters off of clay? I'm being snide to Murat, who's complaining that Roger hasn't got more because there's no grass Masters. But seriously: Nalbandian has 2 MS, and Wawrinka and Ferrer one. Total. Del Potro none. (That's off the top of my head.) My point is the comparison of complaining that Roger hasn't got more, even though 2/3 of them every year are played on HCs, because there isn't one on grass. I'm not really saying that Nadal has over-achieved in MS, but that he's done very well on his favored surface, and done quite well off of it. You can't possibly think that winning 30 MS isn't a great achievement. Here's the thing: Nadal has 1/3 of the calendar every year to make the most of his favored surface, in MS. Federer, who has been on the tour longer, has 2/3 of the year to win MS on HCs, where he has excelled. And yet he has won fewer MS 1000s. He actually only surpassed Nadal a couple of times, and by about one. I'm just saying that, if the argument is about surface, there isn't one. Nadal has done much better in MS than Roger.

 

[DarthFed]

Bercy is slow. Actually, Shanghai is the second fastest HC Masters (next only to Cincy). But, Fed has not yet won it. However, it is a recent masters and Fed has not played there couple of times or so as well. I think he takes Shanghai this time. He already made an announcement in Chinese telling them he is coming over there to conquer it.

Fed won Shanghai in 2014. It is also the same surface they used in YEC which he won 3 times when it was in Shanghai.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed won Shanghai in 2014. It is also the same surface they used in YEC which he won 3 times when it was in Shanghai.

oops, yep. He did win it in 2014. I remember the YEC victories. But, I thought he never won after it got relegated to lowly masters event.

But, still I has been there since 2009. So, it has been there for 8 years. Fed did not play for three of the eight years. Winning just once in 5 tries seems to be low success ratio considering it is a fast court.

 

[DarthFed]

"Only" 8 masters off of clay? I'm being snide to Murat, who's complaining that Roger hasn't got more because there's no grass Masters. But seriously: Nalbandian has 2 MS, and Wawrinka and Ferrer one. Total. Del Potro none. (That's off the top of my head.) My point is the comparison of complaining that Roger hasn't got more, even though 2/3 of them every year are played on HCs, because there isn't one on grass. I'm not really saying that Nadal has over-achieved in MS, but that he's done very well on his favored surface, and done quite well off of it. You can't possibly think that winning 30 MS isn't a great achievement. Here's the thing: Nadal has 1/3 of the calendar every year to make the most of his favored surface, in MS. Federer, who has been on the tour longer, has 2/3 of the year to win MS on HCs, where he has excelled. And yet he has won fewer MS 1000s. He actually only surpassed Nadal a couple of times, and by about one. I'm just saying that, if the argument is about surface, there isn't one. Nadal has done much better in MS than Roger.

Fed has won 20 MS events on hard courts. That is hardly chopped liver. If the point is that Rafa is much better on clay than Roger is on HC then I would agree. It should be mentioned that HC is Rafa's 2nd best surface too as it is for Roger and the events are split evenly between slow and fast HC. Of course Fed is way better overall than Nadal on HC, like he is on everything except clay. Roger has been around a long time, if Halle or Queens was an MS event and you switch out anything except Cincy it stands to reason that he'd have a bunch more MS wins. He has won Canada twice only, if he had a grass MS the conservative estimate would be 6-7 wins.

 

[Moxie]

Fed has won 20 MS events on hard courts. That is hardly chopped liver. If the point is that Rafa is much better on clay than Roger is on HC then I would agree. It should be mentioned that HC is Rafa's 2nd best surface too as it is for Roger and the events are split evenly between slow and fast HC. Of course Fed is way better overall than Nadal on HC, like he is on everything except clay. Roger has been around a long time, if Halle or Queens was an MS event and you switch out anything except Cincy it stands to reason that he'd have a bunch more MS wins. He has won Canada twice only, if he had a grass MS the conservative estimate would be 6-7 wins.

I've hardly made chopped liver out of Roger's achievements in MS. As I mentioned, he did lead the field a time or two. I just think you and Murat are making too much out of a few possible fast courts or grass added into the mix. Look, throw us Nadal and Djokovic fans a bone. One thing that Roger doesn't have, and you natter on about the unfairness of the surfaces. Stop being sore winners. That's my point. And my other one is Rafa isn't just a clay-courter, which you reinforced, so thank you.

 

[Ricardo]

Yes, 3x clay opportunities/year equate to a lot of Masters for Rafa, since he's taken advantage of them. But TMF might have made more hay out of his 6 x MS options per year, especially before Djokovic and Murray started racking them up. Don't try to play that Roger is only good on grass and a bit good on fast HCs. That doesn't run with his record. The fact that he doesn't have more MS than he does simply is what it is.

haha you are arguing with pants down again. The only thing equal for them is that they both get 9 masters......now favourite surface, Rafa has 3 and Roger has none, that's not debatable. You are trying to jab Roger again by saying he has a lot of masters on his second favourite surface, but that is still not the SAME as having 3 on your best surface.

don't know what it is about Federer that upset you so much, must be that he is too successful. But as i recall Federer has never complained that there is no grass MS considering that Wimbledon is seen as the most important GS of the year. This is actually a huge imbalance and something should have been done about it, yet nothing is happening (or even going to) and they slow down the surface to make it easier for the slow courters.....not real fair for fast court players.