You're right. Fact is that he didn't break Sampras' record because in the past in similar situations he decided not to play. Now he knows it's his last chance to break the record he's collecting everything he can.
The real question is: is it wise to focus now on the no. 1 spot?
It could mean that he comes short later on this year at the slams because of these sacrifices..and without 1 more slam he won't break the record.
hmmm, starts to sound like a vicious circle
Fed looked quite fine to me today.
Now here's a question for you Fed fans?
What would Fed want more: another slam or another week at number 1?
The obvious answer is : slam, but I do find it peculiar that he's publicly expressed the intention of going for number 1 ranking.
No nitb, I think you are wrong, number 1 is the obvious answer. As he (and we) know(s) that getting to number 1 cannot come without winning at least one slam if not two! So the obvious answer is the other one it's the WTA after all, it's the ATP baby!!
I obviously meant it's NOT the WTA
Winning a slam does not guarantee number one spot at all.
I think you got the logic of my sentence wrong nitb, I said number 1 doesn't come without a slam, which means I can guarantee you that if he gets to number 1 it means he had to win at least a slam, hence why he'd rather get to number 1 as it would mean winning a slam anyways. That's why I don't think your question can have any other answer thatn becoming number 1. Unless what you meant by your question is whether he'd rather be number 1 without a slam (a la Wozzy) or get a slam, then it's obviouslythe latter, but once again, it's the men's game we're talking about so that question would be total fantasy...
The real question is: is it wise to focus now on the no. 1 spot?
It could mean that he comes short later on this year at the slams because of these sacrifices..and without 1 more slam he won't break the record.
hmmm, starts to sound like a vicious circle
----------------------------
Indeed. We just have to trust his judgement, once again. I don;t think he woudl compromise slams for number 1 spot but as he said recently there is "no secret that being number 1 is important for a top player.
There is a difference also being number 1 and finish teh year number 1. How many times has Federer finished as number 1? 4 or 5? I think 5 times.
But yes slams are more important but I think Fed wants to be number one one last time as GP suggests.
I woudl not be surprised to see Federer lose in Rome asa Nadal does.
Spahir,
you got it wrong!
If he wants a number one he will probably need to win two slams, and that's a lot more work.
"There is a difference also being number 1 and finish teh year number 1. "
I think he's only bothered about that extra week or two he needs to break the record, although the real number one is the one who ends the year as such.
Nitb, I guess your question was badly asked then as it seems to be equivalent for you to what would Fed want more, another slam or another 2 slams, as you're claiming that to get to that other week at number 1 he needs 2 slams, surely the answer should be obvious to you then and it would be 2 slams as 2 os better than 1, you said what would Fed want more. So sorry to emphasize that, but I was right that the answer was obvious and not the one you gave
Federer's no idiot, he wouldn't play if he thought it would aggravate an injury.
That said, so long as he's ok he fancies those extra points and he knows damn well that a chance of only having to play Djokovic or Nadal, not both, at Roland Garros seriously matters. In a final against Djokovic after he's just taken 5 hours to beat Nadal, Federer would have an outstanding chance.
"In a final against Djokovic after he's just taken 5 hours to beat Nadal, Federer would have an outstanding chance."
why are you hoping Djokovic to beat Nadal. Can't Federer do it?
Although Federer is a master of keeping his cards close to his chest with the media, I actually believe him when he says he isn't too worried about being number 1. Obviously he would love it if it happened but I'm not so sure he is thinking in terms of launching an assault on the top spot. As has been mentioned elsewhere, I think for him it is all about the slams now and he's playing Rome just to get some red clay games in before RG.
Outside of the slams, Fed always seems quite serene to me. If he wins, he just seems to enjoying the ride. If he loses, he never seems too upset about it. I think he realises that his achievement in the game is now so great, that the only thing that will really enhance his legacy much further is more slams. Anything else, including weeks at number 1, is just frills round the edge!
Welcome BB, pleasure to see you here. On MTL, I put my signature Fed to be no. 1 again more than a year ago and some posters were calling me delusional at that time but now it might become a reality. Fed to be no. 1 again. Welcome to HMM as well.
Come on Mayer, you have done it before. Beat the moonballer Has anyone read Bodo's article on nadal by any chance?
Also, nitb, if my calculation is correct, Fed "just" needs to win Rome, FO and do better than last year at Wimby to get to number 1 for another week (counting Nole is on the other side at the final of FO) so he only needs 1 slam
Actually even worse, if he wins both Rome and FO he's number 1 no matter what and that means for at least 3-4 more weeks
Nope, sorry, scratch that last comment
"Has anyone read Bodo's article on nadal by any chance? "
yes, I made a reference to it on the Match of the day thread.
"yes, I made a reference to it on the Match of the day thread."
----------------------------------------------
You rock NITB. You take out clay and nadal has hardly won anything. out of 20 masters titles 8 are Monte Carlo.
Come on Mayer, you have done it before. Beat the moonballer
----
It seems like he still has doubts about being in the mix of Rome:
http://www.internazionalibnlditalia.com/News/Tennis/2012/Tournament/Federer-Wednesday.aspx
I reckon once he loses a set here, he'll tank
"I reckon once he loses a set here, he'll tank"
and when do you expect that to happen
Sign in if you want to comment
Why did Federer enter Rome?
Page 1 of 3
posted on 16/5/12
You're right. Fact is that he didn't break Sampras' record because in the past in similar situations he decided not to play. Now he knows it's his last chance to break the record he's collecting everything he can.
The real question is: is it wise to focus now on the no. 1 spot?
It could mean that he comes short later on this year at the slams because of these sacrifices..and without 1 more slam he won't break the record.
hmmm, starts to sound like a vicious circle
posted on 16/5/12
Fed looked quite fine to me today.
posted on 16/5/12
Now here's a question for you Fed fans?
What would Fed want more: another slam or another week at number 1?
The obvious answer is : slam, but I do find it peculiar that he's publicly expressed the intention of going for number 1 ranking.
posted on 16/5/12
No nitb, I think you are wrong, number 1 is the obvious answer. As he (and we) know(s) that getting to number 1 cannot come without winning at least one slam if not two! So the obvious answer is the other one it's the WTA after all, it's the ATP baby!!
posted on 16/5/12
I obviously meant it's NOT the WTA
posted on 16/5/12
Winning a slam does not guarantee number one spot at all.
posted on 16/5/12
I think you got the logic of my sentence wrong nitb, I said number 1 doesn't come without a slam, which means I can guarantee you that if he gets to number 1 it means he had to win at least a slam, hence why he'd rather get to number 1 as it would mean winning a slam anyways. That's why I don't think your question can have any other answer thatn becoming number 1. Unless what you meant by your question is whether he'd rather be number 1 without a slam (a la Wozzy) or get a slam, then it's obviouslythe latter, but once again, it's the men's game we're talking about so that question would be total fantasy...
posted on 16/5/12
The real question is: is it wise to focus now on the no. 1 spot?
It could mean that he comes short later on this year at the slams because of these sacrifices..and without 1 more slam he won't break the record.
hmmm, starts to sound like a vicious circle
----------------------------
Indeed. We just have to trust his judgement, once again. I don;t think he woudl compromise slams for number 1 spot but as he said recently there is "no secret that being number 1 is important for a top player.
posted on 16/5/12
There is a difference also being number 1 and finish teh year number 1. How many times has Federer finished as number 1? 4 or 5? I think 5 times.
But yes slams are more important but I think Fed wants to be number one one last time as GP suggests.
I woudl not be surprised to see Federer lose in Rome asa Nadal does.
posted on 16/5/12
Spahir,
you got it wrong!
If he wants a number one he will probably need to win two slams, and that's a lot more work.
posted on 16/5/12
"There is a difference also being number 1 and finish teh year number 1. "
I think he's only bothered about that extra week or two he needs to break the record, although the real number one is the one who ends the year as such.
posted on 16/5/12
Nitb, I guess your question was badly asked then as it seems to be equivalent for you to what would Fed want more, another slam or another 2 slams, as you're claiming that to get to that other week at number 1 he needs 2 slams, surely the answer should be obvious to you then and it would be 2 slams as 2 os better than 1, you said what would Fed want more. So sorry to emphasize that, but I was right that the answer was obvious and not the one you gave
posted on 16/5/12
Federer's no idiot, he wouldn't play if he thought it would aggravate an injury.
That said, so long as he's ok he fancies those extra points and he knows damn well that a chance of only having to play Djokovic or Nadal, not both, at Roland Garros seriously matters. In a final against Djokovic after he's just taken 5 hours to beat Nadal, Federer would have an outstanding chance.
posted on 16/5/12
"In a final against Djokovic after he's just taken 5 hours to beat Nadal, Federer would have an outstanding chance."
why are you hoping Djokovic to beat Nadal. Can't Federer do it?
posted on 16/5/12
Although Federer is a master of keeping his cards close to his chest with the media, I actually believe him when he says he isn't too worried about being number 1. Obviously he would love it if it happened but I'm not so sure he is thinking in terms of launching an assault on the top spot. As has been mentioned elsewhere, I think for him it is all about the slams now and he's playing Rome just to get some red clay games in before RG.
Outside of the slams, Fed always seems quite serene to me. If he wins, he just seems to enjoying the ride. If he loses, he never seems too upset about it. I think he realises that his achievement in the game is now so great, that the only thing that will really enhance his legacy much further is more slams. Anything else, including weeks at number 1, is just frills round the edge!
posted on 16/5/12
Welcome BB, pleasure to see you here. On MTL, I put my signature Fed to be no. 1 again more than a year ago and some posters were calling me delusional at that time but now it might become a reality. Fed to be no. 1 again. Welcome to HMM as well.
posted on 16/5/12
Come on Mayer, you have done it before. Beat the moonballer Has anyone read Bodo's article on nadal by any chance?
posted on 16/5/12
Also, nitb, if my calculation is correct, Fed "just" needs to win Rome, FO and do better than last year at Wimby to get to number 1 for another week (counting Nole is on the other side at the final of FO) so he only needs 1 slam
posted on 16/5/12
Actually even worse, if he wins both Rome and FO he's number 1 no matter what and that means for at least 3-4 more weeks
posted on 16/5/12
Nope, sorry, scratch that last comment
posted on 16/5/12
"Has anyone read Bodo's article on nadal by any chance? "
yes, I made a reference to it on the Match of the day thread.
posted on 16/5/12
"yes, I made a reference to it on the Match of the day thread."
----------------------------------------------
You rock NITB. You take out clay and nadal has hardly won anything. out of 20 masters titles 8 are Monte Carlo.
posted on 16/5/12
Come on Mayer, you have done it before. Beat the moonballer
----
posted on 16/5/12
It seems like he still has doubts about being in the mix of Rome:
http://www.internazionalibnlditalia.com/News/Tennis/2012/Tournament/Federer-Wednesday.aspx
I reckon once he loses a set here, he'll tank
posted on 16/5/12
"I reckon once he loses a set here, he'll tank"
and when do you expect that to happen
Page 1 of 3