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

[mrzz]

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.

That was not my point. The discussion was if Paris was as fitted to Federer´s style as Cincinnati. I am not complaining about the tournament itself. I am saying that due to court speed, on average, there is no comparison that Cincinnati it is a much better hunting ground for Federer.

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

No, we didn´t. The discussion there was if the grass was "slow" or not -- I was a bit in doubt, but once Federer himself said it was fast, end of the story for me. But again my point here is different -- I am comparing grass not to HC in general but specifically to one of the fastests HC tournaments. I am really in doubt which one is faster -- I have seen some court speed data from Cincinnati that show that things there are really fast. Again, I am not advocating in favor of fast courts (I like a mixed tour with all surfaces represented), I am discussing which surface is more suited to Federer´s style and I am really not sure is grass over fast hards.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

True, and he's had some bad losses there too. Nice opportunity to do well this year especially as he will likely be in a battle for #1

 

[lob]

I don't understand why YE#1 should be a schedule planning consideration for Fed at this point in his career. He has had plenty of chances that he couldn't or didn't take earlier in his career. If he wins USO he's anyway a shoe in for #1. If not and if Rafa wins USO, he likely won't be YE #1. Moreover, winning USO trumps YE#1 any day. Only tennis nerds like us are even aware of what YE#1 is. Even for us, ever obsessed with Fedal debates, which Fed or Rafa acolyte would trade a USO title for a YE#1. The latter is an afterthought and that's the point of it. As Murray realized, it is even considered an illegitimate pitch for greatness if you aren't the slam leader for the year.

Of course it's a different matter that winning USO is always a tough proposition even for the favorite. It's winner has been the least predictable in recent years.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

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.

I didn't start this crying about the surfaces. Roger has NO advantage on any surfaces amongst the 9 Masters? What ever happened to TMF? It's grass or nothing? I'm astonished that the man has 19 Majors, then. I'm being sarcastic, of course. Judging by what everyone has always argued, Roger has 3 best surfaces: grass, indoor HC, and fast HC, with a not inconsiderable ability on slow HC and even clay. The man has won Majors and Masters on all of those surfaces. If people are going to argue that he's the master of the game, then I'm a bit weary of the complaining of how the surfaces have done him ill. That's all. I like Roger fine, and I admire him. Those of you fans who are complaining about the various unfairnesses towards him is a bit rich, though.

 

[El Dude]

Which Masters are people seeing as slow, medium, or fast? It seems the conventional wisdom is:

Slow: Madrid, MC, Rome
Medium: IW, Miami, Canada
Fast: Cincy, Paris, Shanghai

According to this article, however, only Shanghai is actually fast - and of the 14 big titles, only Shanghai, WTF, and Wimbledon. That said, this year AO has been medium-fast, but Wimby only medium. The four remaining Masters are projected to be medium-fast.

But there's a reason Rafa and Novak have more Masters titles than Roger - and it is because overall their speeds better suit their styles.

Finally, that little video at the end is quite interesting, showing court speeds--or at least Wimbledon--slowed down between 2003 and 2008. If that is true across all or most courts, I think it is valid to consider that if Rafa had played in the 90s, he would have been a far inferior player, just as if Sampras had played now, he would have been inferior to how he was in the 90s.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Paris is definitely not fast. I think only Cincy and Shanghai can be considered fast (and that too only medium fast). Note that there is no "blue" in the graphic which represents fast courts.

 

[Moxie]

Which Masters are people seeing as slow, medium, or fast? It seems the conventional wisdom is:

Slow: Madrid, MC, Rome
Medium: IW, Miami, Canada
Fast: Cincy, Paris, Shanghai

According to this article, however, only Shanghai is actually fast - and of the 14 big titles, only Shanghai, WTF, and Wimbledon. That said, this year AO has been medium-fast, but Wimby only medium. The four remaining Masters are projected to be medium-fast.

But there's a reason Rafa and Novak have more Masters titles than Roger - and it is because overall their speeds better suit their styles.

Finally, that little video at the end is quite interesting, showing court speeds--or at least Wimbledon--slowed down between 2003 and 2008. If that is true across all or most courts, I think it is valid to consider that if Rafa had played in the 90s, he would have been a far inferior player, just as if Sampras had played now, he would have been inferior to how he was in the 90s.

The website also discusses a lot of fallacies in discussing court speed. He's not convinced it's all correct. Also, "Canada" is treated as Toronto only. While they may be similar, there surely will be court differences, and Montreal is at twice the elevation, though they are both fairly low.

There are a lot of variables in here. Madrid, while clay, is played at the highest altitude of any of the MS, by a lot. (About 2200 feet/667 m.) And it's not on an old clay surface. There is a smaller brick layer on top of cement, compared to MC, Rome and RG, which have deep and complicated natural layers. Given the hardness of the clay surface, and the altitude, the balls fly more, and the surface is quicker than other clay ones. I'm not saying it even qualifies as medium, but it's definitely a "sub-category" of slow clay. Just saying that it's not all easy to quantify.

Paris is definitely not fast. I think only Cincy and Shanghai can be considered fast (and that too only medium fast). Note that there is no "blue" in the graphic which represents fast courts.

I don't know how you say that Paris is not at all fast. This guy already said that you can't take all of these speed tests at their word. Paris is played indoors, so no effect of wind or humidity. Already this presupposes speed. Perhaps he's got nothing in the blue zone (fast), which is probably because there's no more carpet, and thank god.

 

[Ricardo]

I didn't start this crying about the surfaces. Roger has NO advantage on any surfaces amongst the 9 Masters? What ever happened to TMF? It's grass or nothing? I'm astonished that the man has 19 Majors, then. I'm being sarcastic, of course. Judging by what everyone has always argued, Roger has 3 best surfaces: grass, indoor HC, and fast HC, with a not inconsiderable ability on slow HC and even clay. The man has won Majors and Masters on all of those surfaces. If people are going to argue that he's the master of the game, then I'm a bit weary of the complaining of how the surfaces have done him ill. That's all. I like Roger fine, and I admire him. Those of you fans who are complaining about the various unfairnesses towards him is a bit rich, though.

I am not anyone's fan, but in general it's unfair towards fast court players the way ATP has done it. Now if we look at Fedal alone, would you be happy not complaining about unfairness if there is zero masters on clay but 3 on grass instead? yeah i know Fed can be seen as an all court player with ability on all surfaces but the point is, he has no masters on his best surface, that you can't debate. The way the tour is structured, should it be about 4 masters on hard and then split the rest between grass and clay? especially that Wimbledon is supposedly the most prestigious event, and that alone should deserve some ATP1000 level events as lead ups.

 

[Moxie]

I am not anyone's fan, but in general it's unfair towards fast court players the way ATP has done it. Now if we look at Fedal alone, would you be happy not complaining about unfairness if there is zero masters on clay but 3 on grass instead? yeah i know Fed can be seen as an all court player with ability on all surfaces but the point is, he has no masters on his best surface, that you can't debate. The way the tour is structured, should it be about 4 masters on hard and then split the rest between grass and clay? especially that Wimbledon is supposedly the most prestigious event, and that alone should deserve some ATP1000 level events as lead ups.

I would debate that grass is Roger's lone best surface. He's won 9 Majors on HCs and countless other prestigious titles on them. As I've mentioned before, clay is fully 1/3 of the ATP calendar, so having it be 1/3 of the MS is appropriate. We've all bemoaned that there isn't a grass 1000 event, and debated where and how it might be arranged. I'm fully in favor. Perhaps add a 10th and make it non-mandatory, like Monte Carlo. You're whinging that surfaces are unfair towards fast court players, but then you want to take away a clay MS? Unfair towards slower court players. See how that goes? As far as proportionate to the schedule, the MS is pretty representative. If you're unwilling to add 1 to MS, then a grass one should replace a HC one.

 

[DarthFed]

I would debate that grass is Roger's lone best surface. He's won 9 Majors on HCs and countless other prestigious titles on them. As I've mentioned before, clay is fully 1/3 of the ATP calendar, so having it be 1/3 of the MS is appropriate. We've all bemoaned that there isn't a grass 1000 event, and debated where and how it might be arranged. I'm fully in favor. Perhaps add a 10th and make it non-mandatory, like Monte Carlo. You're whinging that surfaces are unfair towards fast court players, but then you want to take away a clay MS? Unfair towards slower court players. See how that goes? As far as proportionate to the schedule, the MS is pretty representative. If you're unwilling to add 1 to MS, then a grass one should replace a HC one.

Now you are just being silly here. Hard courts are obviously Federer's 2nd best surface just like it is for Rafa. Of course Roger is much better overall on hard courts than Nadal but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most neutral ground for them vs. the field and H2H. So the breakdown is this:

Rafa: 3 MS on his best surface and 6 on 2nd best

Roger: 6 MS on 2nd best surface and 3 on his worst.

It isn't debatable that the surfaces have been slowed down over the years, not just Wimbledon but many others as well. Paris used to be carpet and now they have the exact same surface as YEC which is slow/medium HC. The USO plays a lot slower than 10 years ago, etc.

It makes what Roger's done all the more incredible because if there was more balance the rest of the top guys wouldn't even appear in his rearview mirror career-wise.

 

[mrzz]

I get Moxie´s point... there are too many HC masters out there for Federer to complain, which would be completely true if we were comparing just Federer and Nadal. But there´s a guy named Djokovic in the mix, who surely has the edge on slow HC and it is right up there in medium paced HC. Given that there are really only a few fast HC masters, I also see quite well the point most of the Federer gang is making. But all in all I don´t see nobody being that much hurt about the way things stand. Trade a random masters for a grass one and you could, what, at best add 6 masters to Federer´s account (*), and take those 6 out of the other 2 big dogs. Ok, it does not change that much the grand scheme of things.

About Paris, I do not think we can simply say "Paris is fast", or "Paris is slow", because they have changed a lot the speed of the surface there. I remember years were it was reasonably fast, but I also remember years were it was slow as hell -- I remember we had good fun for a few days on whatever board we were back then joking about how slow it was. Lately I think it is medium paced at best. Yes, it is indoors and it surely helps Federer over Nadal, but again that dude Djokovic is no slouch on indoors either...

IMO, a masters on grass would be nice, but I wouldn´t make a fuss about the surface distribution of the masters. It is what it is.


(*) -- I know he could have won it more than 6 times, but he probably won more than 0 times the one you´re taking out, so a difference of 6 is reasonable.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Even though Roger has earned the right to skip as many mandatory ATP 1000 events as he pleases (as he meets all three criteria for exemptions) for ranking purposes, he can only skip a maximum of three of the eight ATP 1000 events without forfeiting his share of the bonus prize money from the pool for the commitment players. Commitment players are top 30 players at the end of the previous years. The top 12 finishers of each year get money from the bonus pool that varies depending on where they place. The #1 finisher for example gets about $3,000,000 and the #12 finisher gets about $150,000. With a good chance of finishing in top 2, RF would not want to miss out on the easy money coming from bonus pool. Fed has already skipped Rome and Madrid (two mandatory ATP 1000 events). Hence, it is safe to say that he will not skip more than one more ATP 1000 mandatory event. So, if he skips Montreal, it is fairly safe to say that he will play all the rest including Bercy.

One may say, Fed has so much money that he does not care for bonus pool money. But, that would not be true. Nobody would want to lose out on the easy money (unless one has serious injuries preventing them from playing). In fact, he has never missed more than three Masters in the recent past when these rules were in effect. Of course, last year he skipped the entire second half, but it did not affect him any way as he ended up as #17 and thus not eligible for bonus prize money anyway.

 

[Federberg]

I still say he should miss Canada. The focus right now has to be winning at Flushing. After he does that he can focus on the targeting number 1, and if that means playing all of the remaining 1000s so be it. After all, he can always beg off after the first match, claiming injury. Wouldn't be the first time that had been done!

 

[Moxie]

I get Moxie´s point... there are too many HC masters out there for Federer to complain, which would be completely true if we were comparing just Federer and Nadal. But there´s a guy named Djokovic in the mix, who surely has the edge on slow HC and it is right up there in medium paced HC. Given that there are really only a few fast HC masters, I also see quite well the point most of the Federer gang is making. But all in all I don´t see nobody being that much hurt about the way things stand. Trade a random masters for a grass one and you could, what, at best add 6 masters to Federer´s account (*), and take those 6 out of the other 2 big dogs. Ok, it does not change that much the grand scheme of things.

About Paris, I do not think we can simply say "Paris is fast", or "Paris is slow", because they have changed a lot the speed of the surface there. I remember years were it was reasonably fast, but I also remember years were it was slow as hell -- I remember we had good fun for a few days on whatever board we were back then joking about how slow it was. Lately I think it is medium paced at best. Yes, it is indoors and it surely helps Federer over Nadal, but again that dude Djokovic is no slouch on indoors either...

IMO, a masters on grass would be nice, but I wouldn´t make a fuss about the surface distribution of the masters. It is what it is.


(*) -- I know he could have won it more than 6 times, but he probably won more than 0 times the one you´re taking out, so a difference of 6 is reasonable.

My intention wasn't really to compare Fed with Nadal and/or Djokovic. I was just giving @Murat Baslamisli a hard time for saying that the results are "hugely skewed" because there's no grass 1000. Though, by your calculation of the imaginary grass one, Roger would be leading. He has 26 behind Rafa/Novak's 30. One more point, though: Nole only had 5 Masters before 2011, the year that Roger turned 30, so he wasn't competing for them with Roger in Fed's prime years. Roger maybe should have scooped up more before ND and AM came up, but I don't fault him. If he saved it for the Majors, he made a good calculation. He doesn't have to have every record.

 

[Moxie]

Even though Roger has earned the right to skip as many mandatory ATP 1000 events as he pleases (as he meets all three criteria for exemptions) for ranking purposes, he can only skip a maximum of three of the eight ATP 1000 events without forfeiting his share of the bonus prize money from the pool for the commitment players. Commitment players are top 30 players at the end of the previous years. The top 12 finishers of each year get money from the bonus pool that varies depending on where they place. The #1 finisher for example gets about $3,000,000 and the #12 finisher gets about $150,000. With a good chance of finishing in top 2, RF would not want to miss out on the easy money coming from bonus pool. Fed has already skipped Rome and Madrid (two mandatory ATP 1000 events). Hence, it is safe to say that he will not skip more than one more ATP 1000 mandatory event. So, if he skips Montreal, it is fairly safe to say that he will play all the rest including Bercy.

One may say, Fed has so much money that he does not care for bonus pool money. But, that would not be true. Nobody would want to lose out on the easy money (unless one has serious injuries preventing them from playing). In fact, he has never missed more than three Masters in the recent past when these rules were in effect. Of course, last year he skipped the entire second half, but it did not affect him any way as he ended up as #17 and thus not eligible for bonus prize money anyway.

This is very interesting. I didn't know how that worked. Still, it's not like Roger's hurting for money, so if he deems that it's best for him to sit an extra one out, for the body and the long-term, do you think that he won't? That's a sincere question.

 

[mrzz]

^fair enough. In fact am not that interested in that calculation, or fantasy-world or whatever. It could well be the case that with one grass masters he would have this another record, but on the other hand, if the trade was Cincinnati (or another he´s been succesfull) for a grass master, it would not change much.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

My intention wasn't really to compare Fed with Nadal and/or Djokovic. I was just giving @Murat Baslamisli a hard time for saying that the results are "hugely skewed" because there's no grass 1000. Though, by your calculation of the imaginary grass one, Roger would be leading. He has 26 behind Rafa/Novak's 30. One more point, though: Nole only had 5 Masters before 2011, the year that Roger turned 30, so he wasn't competing for them with Roger in Fed's prime years. Roger maybe should have scooped up more before ND and AM came up, but I don't fault him. If he saved it for the Majors, he made a good calculation. He doesn't have to have every record.

No hard times @Moxie , it is always fun to play the "what if "games for our favorite players I thought it was fair to wish for just one grass Masters, not only as a Fed fan, but as a guy who grew up idolizing guys like Edberg, Sampras, etc...attacking tennis. Homogenization may work for milk, but it sucks for tennis.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Only 96 hours left for the draw ceremony of Montreal. Still no announcement from Fed. Fed is in the entry list and so he does not have to make any announcement if he is playing. If he is dropping out, I am sure that he will do so before the draw is made. I am beginning to get the feeling that he has decided to play, considering there is no announcement so far. But, what do I know?

 

[Moxie]

No hard times @Moxie , it is always fun to play the "what if "games for our favorite players I thought it was fair to wish for just one grass Masters, not only as a Fed fan, but as a guy who grew up idolizing guys like Edberg, Sampras, etc...attacking tennis. Homogenization may work for milk, but it sucks for tennis.

It's fair to wish for it. We've spilt a lot of ink here all wondering how they might get one, and I think everyone is in favor of it. I was just wondering at the notion of a poor, pitiful, underserved Federer.

 

[Moxie]

Only 96 hours left for the draw ceremony of Montreal. Still no announcement from Fed. Fed is in the entry list and so he does not have to make any announcement if he is playing. If he is dropping out, I am sure that he will do so before the draw is made. I am beginning to get the feeling that he has decided to play, considering there is no announcement so far. But, what do I know?

I get everyone's argument that he shouldn't play Montreal, only Cincy, though @mrzz makes a good argument that, if he plays Montreal he more controls his own destiny before the USO. If he's doing well in Canada, but sees no decent line to the finish, he can always bail. It's not like it never happens. He's got 4 little kids and can always say he's got a cold. Then he also controls Cincy, and how much he wants to play there. If he rolls the dice with Cincinnati, and gets dumped out early, he's got no match prep before the NY. Which could be fine, but it's riskier, and leaves him more at the fortunes of the draw there, and the notion that he'll play himself in.