Federer confirms his belief in regaining the number 1 spot....

..and also confirms he has been playing as well as ever at times.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/02/9/Dubai-Federer-Eyeing-Return-To-No-1.aspx

He looks at ease with himself.

Tenez. You are just trying to get Federer into trouble. If you read the article he is just being his usual diplomatic self.

I think he also believes he can regain that number 1 spot....and so do I.

I think it's funny the way he says he wants that "record".

I saw a different interview in which he says he's not bothered about it so much, that he is friends with Pete and that if he really wanted it he could've chased it.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16637&zoneid=25

Yes...2 versions of the same interview it seems.

Funny to say "I could have chased it but I chose not to."

Tenez wrote:Yes...2 versions of the same interview it seems.

Funny to say "I could have chased it but I chose not to."

That strikes me a bit on the arrogant side. Like oh I let Pete have that one. I don't know Tenez what is the scenario you see for Roger getting #1 back. I guess you are predicting injury on the part of the guys ranked above him? Or do you see some other picture?

As long as he believes its within his grasp,it will motivate him to keep playing
I personally believe that ship has sailed,but I would like nothing more then for him to prove me wrong
I think the media arent reporting Rogers comments in the right context or people are misunderstanding him. Ever since Roger lost the no1 ranking he has been keen to regain it.While he may not flat out have chased it,his motivation to win majors suggests otherwise
He could have thought to himself,its better to retire 3rd 4th or even 10th adding a few more majors then to chase the ranking and never win another major and never get the ranking back
And even if we take his comments at face value,no where did he ever imply its a forgone conclusion that if he did decide to chase the ranking that he would get it back so its a little presumptuous for some to assume that " he's letting Pete have this one cause he didn't feel like chasing the record"
All he is saying is that he prioritised things differently,the record could have been his no1 priority but he decided otherwise

To be frank I am disappointed with Federer.

Many Federer fans complain about the way the sport is heading - the "apparent" slow down of conditions, the "homogenisation" of surface conditions - yet Federer himself hardly says anything. Why doesn't he use his influence to get the tournament organisers to speed up the courts? Why does he instead just moan and say I coulda, I woulda if I was bovered. Why doesn't he speak up for all those fans that want a few steps back towards serve and volley, towards a game with greater variety, towards a game where five hour matches is not the norm?

Hmm I'd like to see more arrogance claims levied towards Roger Federer IF he made these comments. After all wasn't Andy Murray savaged for daring to aim for No.3 (one place rise) yet Federer is No.3 and reckons he can get to No.1. Doubly arrogant?

Nore Staat wrote:To be frank I am disappointed with Federer.

Many Federer fans complain about the way the sport is heading - the "apparent" slow down of conditions, the "homogenisation" of surface conditions - yet Federer himself hardly says anything. Why doesn't he use his influence to get the tournament organisers to speed up the courts? Why does he instead just moan and say I coulda, I woulda if I was bovered. Why doesn't he speak up for all those fans that want a few steps back towards serve and volley, towards a game with greater variety, towards a game where five hour matches is not the norm?

Actually Roger has spoken about the slowing down of surfaces before it even became a big topic and faced huge backlash where not only the media but many tennis fans called him sour grapes for implying that its easier to win on all surfaces and achieve a calendar/ career grand slam now then it was in other eras.And this was before the U.S Open and AO decided to slow their surfaces down too
Look Roger isn't stupid,he knows the sole purpose of the courts being slowed down is that the kind of competitive matches it creates (especially slam finals) generates huge interest in the sport.Not only that,winning 3 majors in a season has become the norm for a world no1,so players achieving feats hardly seen before in previous eras makes this era look like a "golden era" to the casual viewer
My issue with this has nothing to do with how it personally effects Roger,I think in the long run the sport suffers cause 1,the surfaces are becoming too similar and the challenge isn't anywhere near as great as it once was,its taking the individuality of the surfaces/what it means to win particular tournaments away and 2,I am thinking about the longevity of the athletes careers.Slow the court down and add how the way the game is played today,you end up with record breaking 6 hour long matches,titanic battles from the baseline that could go on,not just for hours,but for days as seen at Wimbledon.All great for the viewer but at what cost for the athlete? Nadal is already complaining that season is killing him,and I think slowing down the surfaces plays part.
Roger doesn't complain because he knows it will get him no where and all he will do is face the huge backlash,cause his always in a position of damned if you do and damned if you don't
Further more you're misunderstanding his comments,he is saying the no1 ranking wasn't his main priority.Chasing the no1 ranking would basically chasing every tournament he plays in.At his age he knows he cant win as much as he used to,he needs to be realistic and focus where his best chances are.He was thinking that it would probably be better to retire 3rd or 4th and win several more majors then chase the no1 ranking and as a result possibly never win another major or even ever get the no1 ranking back
Look at Nadal last season,moaning about the length of the season after chasing every title,Roger knows if he did the same thing,it could shorten his career and for a player who has already won everything,its stupid to run after every title

The gap between Fed and number one is enormous, but thousands of points can change hands in a very short space of time.
Although Rog has finalist points to defend at the French, he could make inroads on the top two merely by getting to finals, as Rafa and Nole were first and second in nearly every tourney in the middle part of last year.
Will he close the gap? May be a little, but not - IMHO - enough to get the number one back. Reckon he would rather win another slam than get back to number one, although doing the former will help the latter.
We saw huge turnarounds points-wise in 09 and 10, while Nole left everyone standing last year. So a big change is always possible. Look at some previous years and the number one changed hands seemingly every week. We've got used to long spells at the head of the pack for the top players since 04.

sirfredperry wrote:The gap between Fed and number one is enormous, but thousands of points can change hands in a very short space of time.
Although Rog has finalist points to defend at the French, he could make inroads on the top two merely by getting to finals, as Rafa and Nole were first and second in nearly every tourney in the middle part of last year.
Will he close the gap? May be a little, but not - IMHO - enough to get the number one back. Reckon he would rather win another slam than get back to number one, although doing the former will help the latter.
We saw huge turnarounds points-wise in 09 and 10, while Nole left everyone standing last year. So a big change is always possible. Look at some previous years and the number one changed hands seemingly every week. We've got used to long spells at the head of the pack for the top players since 04.

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make

Veejay. Our posts crossed. Very good summing up of the situation. You may recall Agassi a few years back having to be actually told he'd just got back to number one.
He replied that it was very nice but it wasn't his priority. He wanted to win slams and carry on competing at the very top. Even when this was not possible he played on on the basis that he wanted to be good enough for his opponent to have to be at their best to beat him.

sirfredperry wrote:Veejay. Our posts crossed. Very good summing up of the situation. You may recall Agassi a few years back having to be actually told he'd just got back to number one.
He replied that it was very nice but it wasn't his priority. He wanted to win slams and carry on competing at the very top. Even when this was not possible he played on on the basis that he wanted to be good enough for his opponent to have to be at their best to beat him.

Yep - a fair response from Veejay.

I just wish that perhaps he could be more forthright in expressing his / these views but from the perspective of the sport in general (rather than himself). He could make use of the Nadal complaints as a means to back the argument of faster courts (hence shorter matches), a bit more variety etc. He could raise the issues of athletes health and career longevity (shorter points, shorter matches), more variety etc. Who else is banging the drum for some restoration of "balance" in the sport - if it's just a few "cranks" on 606 v2 and elsewhere - then they will just be ignored.

Nore Staat wrote:To be frank I am disappointed with Federer.

Many Federer fans complain about the way the sport is heading - the "apparent" slow down of conditions, the "homogenisation" of surface conditions - yet Federer himself hardly says anything. Why doesn't he use his influence to get the tournament organisers to speed up the courts? Why does he instead just moan and say I coulda, I woulda if I was bovered. Why doesn't he speak up for all those fans that want a few steps back towards serve and volley, towards a game with greater variety, towards a game where five hour matches is not the norm?

I think you addressing 2 different matter here which are not related.

Federer is actually a very mature young player. He plays on the conditions people want to watch. He said in many interviews that he thought the conds were a bit too slow nowadays and it was a "shame". He even said he did not understand it at first but then accepted the situation, including his rivalry with Nadal.

The chasing the record is a different matter and not related to court conds. Certainly wasn't when he had tons of points ahead of everybody and was almost guaranteed the record....until he fell hill before Dubai 2010. Yet he just needed to secure a few hundred points to get the record but chose to rest longer instead for the clay season. I believe that's what he means.

According to Murray, Dubai court is very fast.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yes...2 versions of the same interview it seems.

Funny to say "I could have chased it but I chose not to."

That strikes me a bit on the arrogant side. Like oh I let Pete have that one.

He tells is like it is. He chose to play Estoril and not Monte Carlo. And by not playing Monte Carlo (and the possibility of Rafa winning RG again) he knew he had to make it at least to the semis at RG. After he lost the top spot at RG he had a second chance to take Pete's record by playing (and winning) an extra grass tournament (Rosmalen). I think at the time he thought he would take that record some other time anyway. I guess he underestimated how difficult it would be to re-capture the no. 1 position.

So clearly he did not chase the record when it mattered most.

The weeks-at-the-top record would be nice and the figures that the top players have achieved - well over 250 weeks in total - are impressive.
But in years to come I'm sure that people won't talk about weeks at number one so much as GS wins or overall quality of play. This is not to say that a player achieving long stretches at number one is not to be immensely admired.

Number of weeks at number one is great but being just one behind teh record is almost irrelevant....especially out of 286. And I will say the same if Federer gets one more week than Pete. What woudl be an achievement is to become number 1 again at 30...and for a decent period...3 months or more.

Being number is the greatest achievement in sport...including tennis. It doesn't last and it is the first and most prized achievement.

It's called being on top of the world!

It would be great to see him claim the record - but I have to agree with all above that I think it is probably unlikely unless Novak and Rafa do each other a mischief this year!!

He was just so close - a week away, but I think the lung infection post AO did mean that he was very short of practice pre Indian Wells/Miami in 2010 and so he was saving his legs for the big ones rather than making clawing enough points to cling onto no 1 for another week.

He may get back to #1 in 2016.

time please wrote:It would be great to see him claim the record - but I have to agree with all above that I think it is probably unlikely unless Novak and Rafa do each other a mischief this year!!

He was just so close - a week away, but I think the lung infection post AO did mean that he was very short of practice pre Indian Wells/Miami in 2010 and so he was saving his legs for the big ones rather than making clawing enough points to cling onto no 1 for another week.

I like this post - I agree that No. 1 is probably now beyond Fed.

As to the second part, I thought that Fed went to Estoril in part to get some clay matches under his belt after having to miss MC, but also significantly to try and pick up some points in his attempt to cling on to No. 1. It meant him playing 3 weeks in a row and, I may be wrong, but I think that he could have gotten the points he needed there to last another week.

He could not sensibly have put in another grass 250 after Halle given that he suffered an injury there. The only tournament he 'missed' therefore was MC and he replaced it with an insurance policy of Estoril anyway. I think he lost the No. 1 early down to poor play on his part, helped no doubt by his virus, and not because he did not play enough tournaments to secure the ranking.

Bombing at RG and Wimbledon lost him 3,280 odd points in the space of 6 weeks (another 100 dropped at Halle) - he's never gotten himself back from that and his trouble now is that it would take that sort of performance from 3 others (I include Murray because if Nadal and Djoko bomb in slams he is likely to take advantage whereas in mid 2010 Murray and Djoko were somewhat subdued).

Halle, Germany; 07.06.2010; 250; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 32

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R32 Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 65 W 6-4, 6-4 Stats
R16 Alejandro Falla (COL) 67 W 6-1, 6-2 Stats
Q Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) 35 W 7-5, 6-3 Stats
S Philipp Petzschner (GER) 41 W 7-6(3), 6-4 Stats
F Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 32 L 6-3, 6-7(4), 4-6 Stats

This Event Points: 150, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 2, Prize Money: Ç59,900

Roland Garros, France; 24.05.2010; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Peter Luczak (AUS) 71 W 6-4, 6-1, 6-2 Stats
R64 Alejandro Falla (COL) 70 W 7-6(4), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
R32 Julian Reister (GER) 165 W 6-4, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
R16 Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 24 W 6-3, 7-6(5), 6-2 Stats
Q Robin Soderling (SWE) 7 L 6-3, 3-6, 5-7, 4-6 Stats

This Event Points: 360, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: Ç140,000

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 09.05.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R64 Bye N/A W
R32 Benjamin Becker (GER) 46 W 6-2, 7-6(4) Stats
R16 Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 23 W 6-3, 6-1 Stats
Q Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 34 W 3-6, 6-1, 6-4 Stats
S David Ferrer (ESP) 12 W 7-5, 3-6, 6-3 Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 3 L 4-6, 6-7(5) Stats

This Event Points: 600, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: Ç270,000

Estoril, Portugal; 03.05.2010; 250; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 28

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R32 Bye N/A W
R16 Bjorn Phau (GER) 138 W 6-3, 6-4 Stats
Q Arnaud Clement (FRA) 83 W 7-6(7), 6-2 Stats
S Albert Montanes (ESP) 34 L 2-6, 6-7(5) Stats

This Event Points: 90, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: Ç20,500

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 25.04.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R64 Bye N/A W
R32 Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 40 L 6-2, 1-6, 5-7 Stats

This Event Points: 10, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: Ç14,500

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 24.03.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Bye N/A W
R64 Nicolas Lapentti (ECU) 102 W 6-3, 6-3 Stats
R32 Florent Serra (FRA) 61 W 7-6(2), 7-6(3) Stats
R16 Tomas Berdych (CZE) 20 L 4-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(6) Stats

This Event Points: 90, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: $39,800

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 11.03.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Bye N/A W
R64 Victor Hanescu (ROU) 43 W 6-3, 6-7(5), 6-1 Stats
R32 Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 33 L 7-5, 5-7, 6-7(4) Stats

This Event Points: 45, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: $21,300

Australian Open, Australia; 18.01.2010; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Igor Andreev (RUS) 37 W 4-6, 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-0 Stats
R64 Victor Hanescu (ROU) 47 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
R32 Albert Montanes (ESP) 32 W 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
R16 Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 22 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
Q Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 6 W 2-6, 6-3, 6-0, 7-5 Stats
S Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 10 W 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
W Andy Murray (GBR) 4 W 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(11) Stats

This Event Points: 2,000, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: A$2,100,000

Doha, Qatar; 04.01.2010; 250; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32

Round Opponent Ranking Score
R32 Christophe Rochus (BEL) 86 W 6-1, 6-2 Stats
R16 Evgeny Korolev (KAZ) 53 W 6-2, 6-4 Stats
Q Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 90 W 6-2, 4-6, 6-4 Stats
S Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 6 L 4-6, 4-6 Stats

This Event Points: 90, South African Airways ATP Ranking: 1, Prize Money: $52,520

Tenez. Yes, the number one spot is everyone's goal and a wonderful achievement. But which do you think a player would prefer - getting to number one or winning Wimbledon?

sirfredperry wrote:Tenez. Yes, the number one spot is everyone's goal and a wonderful achievement. But which do you think a player would prefer - getting to number one or winning Wimbledon?

I personally would prefer Wimbledon....but between number 1 or the AO...I would not hesitate and pick number 1. There is something of "number 1! in Wimbledon which by winning it can give you that "number 1" title. I don;t think there is the equivalent with the other slams.

I really agree. Doubt whether, say, Pat Cash - who can do charmless to the nth degree - would have been asked to do so many commentary shifts if he'd merely won one of the other slams.
Some will be surprised to learn Cash only won six tournaments, but one was particularly special.

sirfredperry wrote:I really agree. Doubt whether, say, Pat Cash - who can do charmless to the nth degree - would have been asked to do so many commentary shifts if he'd merely won one of the other slams.
Some will be surprised to learn Cash only won six tournaments, but one was particularly special.

Don't forget, Cash commentates on Wimbledon and for telecasts beamed into England so winning the English slam is pretty relevant to that.

Injuries meant that we did not see the best of him, but he was a very good player indeed and worth a slam win - he was a very dangerous floater in several slams during the mid 1980's (my favourite tennis period I have to confess) and would regularly be a participant in one of the most talked-about matches each tournament because of his entertaining style of play and never-say-die attitude. He also made the Aus Open Final twice when it was established as a prestigious tournament - 1987 and 1988 losing to Edberg and Wilander. He was a way better player than his cumulative record suggests.

sirfredperry wrote:I really agree. Doubt whether, say, Pat Cash - who can do charmless to the nth degree - would have been asked to do so many commentary shifts if he'd merely won one of the other slams.
Some will be surprised to learn Cash only won six tournaments, but one was particularly special.

Amazing that he only won 6 other tournaments - I am surprised sirfred. Shame for the Aussies that he couldn't sneak pass the finish line in his two AO finals, but agree that the Wimbledon trophy has a very special cachet - the Aussies erected a statue of PC outside Rod Laver for this feat alone, or was it for the DC?

The number one spot of course is an achievement but it is more contrived and less definative than winning tournaments. After all ranking points are awarded according to how importantant certain achievements are considered.

They are not set in stone and can be open to debate for lots of reasons. For example (and I am certainly not trying to argue the case... ) if a two year ranking system was used Djokovic would not be number 1 Nadal would.

Title wins are title wins there can be no argument. IMO it would be sensible for all players to concentrate on this and let any stats associated with such wins take care of themselves.

As far as Federer being arragant. I suppose I see it as being honest and quite like it when he's a bit boastful because I think he's so good... but then I am a fan.

Nore Staat

Wasn't Nadal calling Federer out for not speaking up more? I think Nadal came up with some phrase describing Federer of liking to always come up smelling of roses. This made me smile because I thought it was perceptive and descriptive. Federer always does come up smelling of roses! It also made me smile because some accused Nadal of having a verbal "spat" with Federer. Really? Saying he smelt of roses! I do love tennis...

We have more slam winners than number ones in the mens (since the open era) ....so in theory being number one is harder than being a slam winner....isn't it?

I think a little less well of Rafa for some of his latest public airings of things that irritate him - but I think we are seeing a man trying to emerge from the stifling presence of Uncle Toni and the apoplectic Sebastien and he will settle down again.

The number one ranking is important and validates the best player in the world under the current means of calculating such a position - certainly you are correct that if ATP followed Rafa's proposal, that would no longer be the case. Happily, that idea seems not to have caught anybody else's imagination!

time please

I have to disagree. I think its great that Nadal speaks out. It's brave and he risks smelling less sweet. It's also rare in these days of image and sponsorship. Also he does often have interesting and well thought out things to say. Of course no one can be expected to agree with everything but at least we get to hear what is of course talked about behind closed doors.

As for the hints that he has been kept under lock and key. I see little evidence as he speaks out a lot more than most.

No. 1 is more difficult than winning a slam for sure - you've got to excel over more than 2 weeks/7 matches.

Only one No. 1 never won a slam, Rios, and I believe he'd be thought of as a better player than many 1-slam wonders who never made No. 1 (e.g. Korda, Gaudio, Johansson), but he's also thought of as a player with a gaping hole in his career. I'd say Michael Stich had a more enviable career than Rios but his career had more depth to it than the solitary highlight of an unexpected slam win.

I think winning a slam, particularly Wimbledon, would be better than making No. 1 for a short while without a slam - but much depends upon the rest of the career.

Comparing Becker and Edberg is interesting - same slam tally but Boris was better at winning tournaments and on the personal H2H whilst Edberg was No. 1 for way longer than Boris ever was.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having the self-belief to set such goals, however we all know that there is a difference between what one believes and what one does on the court to back up that belief. He finds himself in a position by where if Djokovic or Nadal are left standing between him and a Slam, then the latter would be heavily favoured for the end result. Whether Federer can achieve that with Masters titles would be a whole new discussion entirely.

Yep, that's a fair point from hawkeye. Nadal did speak up regarding the increasing toughness of the tennis season and offered a few solutions. I think even Murray echoed the issue. Federer could have agreed with this and could have offered his own solutions for the same issue. There was an opportunity for him but he didn't take it. I do seem to recall that Nadal was saying that it was an issue shared by many and that there was some disappointment that Federer hadn't presented their case.

legendkillar

I think Federer would fancy his chances against Djokovic. So would I (Federer's chances that is not mine... )

Not so sure Hawky. Look at the WTF. Roger dismantled Nadal. Come AO, Federer seemed heavily tipped to defeat in Nadal and was overcome in 4. That tells me that his 'belief' is not as convincing as he believes. I doubt however he would fancy Djokovic.

Nore Staat wrote:Yep, that's a fair point from hawkeye. Nadal did speak up regarding the increasing toughness of the tennis season and offered a few solutions. I think even Murray echoed the issue. Federer could have agreed with this and could have offered his own solutions for the same issue. There was an opportunity for him but he didn't take it. I do seem to recall that Nadal was saying that it was an issue shared by many and that there was some disappointment that Federer hadn't presented their case.

Federer's point, which he made openly and fairly, was that Nadal's concerns were not shared by less successful players on tour who need lots of tournaments to have an opportunity to earn a crust and that Federer's job was to represent those players. He also pointed out that the schedule being criticised by Nadal had only recently been amended with the players' agreement.

In other words Fed punctured Nadal's selfishness, but he did so very politely. I am very glad if the top players were 'disappointed' that Federer did not go along with their attempts to load the dice in their favour ("solutions" my ar$e). If players like Nadal think the season is too long and tough they can manage their schedules or the way they play or ask for conditions to be sped up a tiny bit to shortern matches and the wear and tear on them during competition....

Thought not.

Legy

Nadal is a different proposition to Djokovic. Look at Federer and Djokovics last slam meetings. Federer won one and all but won both!

barrystar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Yep, that's a fair point from hawkeye. Nadal did speak up regarding the increasing toughness of the tennis season and offered a few solutions. I think even Murray echoed the issue. Federer could have agreed with this and could have offered his own solutions for the same issue. There was an opportunity for him but he didn't take it. I do seem to recall that Nadal was saying that it was an issue shared by many and that there was some disappointment that Federer hadn't presented their case.

Federer's point, which he made openly and fairly, was that Nadal's concerns were not shared by less successful players on tour who need lots of tournaments to have an opportunity to earn a crust and that Federer's job was to represent those players. He also pointed out that the schedule being criticised by Nadal had only recently been amended with the players' agreement.

In other words Fed punctured Nadal's selfishness, but he did so very politely. I am very glad if the top players were 'disappointed' that Federer did not go along with their attempts to load the dice in their favour ("solutions" my ar$e). If players like Nadal think the season is too long and tough they can manage their schedules or the way they play or ask for conditions to be sped up a tiny bit to shortern matches and the wear and tear on them during competition....

Thought not.

The point is that Federer is not echoing what some of his fans are arguing for on this board. It seems he is happy with the status quo.

Nore Staat wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Yep, that's a fair point from hawkeye. Nadal did speak up regarding the increasing toughness of the tennis season and offered a few solutions. I think even Murray echoed the issue. Federer could have agreed with this and could have offered his own solutions for the same issue. There was an opportunity for him but he didn't take it. I do seem to recall that Nadal was saying that it was an issue shared by many and that there was some disappointment that Federer hadn't presented their case.

Federer's point, which he made openly and fairly, was that Nadal's concerns were not shared by less successful players on tour who need lots of tournaments to have an opportunity to earn a crust and that Federer's job was to represent those players. He also pointed out that the schedule being criticised by Nadal had only recently been amended with the players' agreement.

In other words Fed punctured Nadal's selfishness, but he did so very politely. I am very glad if the top players were 'disappointed' that Federer did not go along with their attempts to load the dice in their favour ("solutions" my ar$e). If players like Nadal think the season is too long and tough they can manage their schedules or the way they play or ask for conditions to be sped up a tiny bit to shortern matches and the wear and tear on them during competition....

Thought not.

The point is that Federer is not echoing what some of his fans are arguing for on this board. It seems he is happy with the status quo.

You could say that he is realistic about what he could achieve by asking for changes against the tide of the last 10 years and that he is happier with the status quo than further changes designed to assist slow court players. Anyway, that debate was not about surfaces, it was about the different matter of rankings and mandatory tournaments.

I don't know what he'd prefer - I think he's a bit of a traditionalist so he likes different surfaces (it helps that he can play a bit on clay as well as fast grass/concrete). However, from my perspective it must be that he benefits from a surface where a ball goes through rather than one which resists a ball and causes it to spit up and slow down - that would help nullify Nadal's tactic of spiny forehands high to the backhand, which we know is the one thing that consistently beats him.

legendkillar wrote:I don't think there is anything wrong with having the self-belief to set such goals, however we all know that there is a difference between what one believes and what one does on the court to back up that belief. He finds himself in a position by where if Djokovic or Nadal are left standing between him and a Slam, then the latter would be heavily favoured for the end result. Whether Federer can achieve that with Masters titles would be a whole new discussion entirely.

May just interpose to say that belief and confidence are two very different things. Belief, you're born with. It never leaves you. Confidence comes and goes.

Nore Staat, outside of tennis websites I haven't seen a widespread call among fans or the media for faster conditions. Personally, I think it would taint Roger's legacy if all of sudden they sped up the conditions once Roger got too old to win with the conditions that saw him lift 16 slams. I don't know if he wins 16 slams on slowed conditions now that he isn't winning slams he comes out an calls for faster conditions then I don't think many people would take him seriously and some, me included would doubt his motivations.

OUtside of injury to the top 2 he isn't getting the number #1 ranking. And I don't know about all those people who think that Roger somehow has Novak's number still. Yes he is closer in their matchups to Novak than Nadal is, but I doubt I would favor him in too many 5 set matches.

bstar: I think the two are connected - low bounce / skidding off the court quickly and high bounce / ball held up (slower).

socal: I will more or less go along along with what the players say. Federer doesn't beat the drum for "change" like some of his fans do on this particular forum - that's been my main point of today.

Nore Staat wrote:Yep, that's a fair point from hawkeye. Nadal did speak up regarding the increasing toughness of the tennis season and offered a few solutions.

No. He offered solutions to suit his agenda. Not the rest of the players. That's exactly what annoyed most people here. His agenda may have suited Federer's too but Federer saw beyond it and thought about the game and the rest of the players.

Nadal is irritating.

i will say this, I definetly didn't take kindly to Nadal suggestion of 2 year #1 ranking. I take that as being highly self serving on Nadal's part. Also I am not a fan of cutting the schedule because as others have pointed out the lower ranked players need the prize money and the points.

Tenez wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Yep, that's a fair point from hawkeye. Nadal did speak up regarding the increasing toughness of the tennis season and offered a few solutions.

No. He offered solutions to suit his agenda. Not the rest of the players. That's exactly what annoyed most people here. His agenda may have suited Federer's too but Federer saw beyond it and thought about the game and the rest of the players.

Nadal is irritating.

It would have been a win win solution for Federer and the players. He could have said yes the tour is too demanding for the top players but we shouldn't shorten the season and reduce the number of mandatory tournaments because that would be unfair on the tournament organisers and the lower ranked players. The solution is therefore to get back towards the previous conditions of faster courts, which will shorten the matches, thus prolonging the careers of the top players, keeping the same opportunities for the lower ranked players, making the tournament organisers happy for keeping their tournaments mandatory, making the spectators happy etc etc. But no he didn't do that he said it's all fine, we should keep everything as it is. Now that's fair do s in my book. Case closed. New balls, Djokovic to serve.

Federer has said that it is a shame that there is not the same individuality in court speeds in the slams more than once. He has said it fairly mildly and not made a huge fuss about it - maybe he doesn't feel that strongly, or maybe he knows that the majority of powers that be in the ITF favour maintaining the status quo and so it would be an impotent moan?

Federer has also said that the tour is as demanding as it has ever been and it is up to the top players to manage their schedule.

What else can he say - he has been pretty clear about his feelings. What's not to understand?