Federers map to #1; first, get to #2 before Roland Garros

First topic message reminder :

This is the key; he needs the chance of Djokovic and Nadal meeting in the semi at the French, and while getting Nadal down to #3 only gives him a 50/50 chance thereof, it's important.

To achieve that he has to gain another 1000 points over Rafa from Miami onwards. Looking at what they each have on the line;

Rafa;
Miami 600
Monte Carlo 1000
Barcelona 500
Madrid 600
Rome 600

Total 3300

Roger;

Miami 360
Monte Carlo 180
Madrid 360
Rome 90

Total 990

Last year he lost this phase by 2310 points. He needs to lose by no more than 1480. Can he? It's not as easy as it looks. Much will depend on whether Nadal plays the extra event (is he doing that, with the Olympics in the calendar?) and of course whether he can avoid disasters like Meltzer and Gasquet. Even so, were Nadal to enjoy a clay season like 2010 when he won the lot he'd be uncatchable even if Federer made every final. He needs to put up a good showing at Miami. Perhaps it's even more important that Nadal slips up early somewhere. The top two so rarely get dumped early but that would be devastating.

What's the betting?

HarpoMars wrote:

Tenez wrote:I still think Fed wants to be fresh for the FO cause he still believes, that despite his record v Nadal on clay....he can beat him on clay over 5 sets. That's how champions think. Trust me I am one!...

Wow really Tenez! Are you trying to hint that you're really a Slam winner?? Surely not...really...are you Sue Barker?

I am the tennis champion of my neighbourhood. And I live in Wimbledon. What else do you need!

I just just don't play one of the Wimbledon tournaments (the one in Churh road) cause I prepare for my Hols to France at that time of the year.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

hawkeye wrote: Federer, Soderling in 2010 FO final (remember when "everyone" said Soderling had Nadals number on clay) and now Djokovic.

Who is this "everyone" ? No one said Soderling had Nadal's numbers on clay. It was just one win, big win I agree, but only 1. It was a brilliant play from Soderling and he played great that day. To have someone's "numbers" one has to beat them consistently over a number of matches and convincingly. Soderling has never managed to do that against any top player. So he didn't really have anyone's numbers.

And no one is saying Djo has Nadal's numbers on clay. But "everyone" is saying Djo has Nadal's number not only on clay, but every where.

I think I'm using "everyone" in the same way that your using "everyone"...

sirfredperry, I'd say Murray is a bit of an unknown @ the moment because although he's played Federer and Djokovic, he hasn't played Nadal since taking on Lendl as coach and it was Nadal who beat Murray in 3 slams in a row last year (French, Wimbledon & USO). So Murray maybe a real contender if the improvements delivered so far allow him to beat Nadal. So far there's been improvements against Djokovic (been very close) but not much against Federer (maybe the fast courts @ Dubai have something to do with it).

There's no surprise that the posts here refer to the top 3 so much, they dominate the titles and the runner up positions. More precisely, Djokovic and Nadal did (apart from Fed's RG final spot). As a result, if Fed wants to climb upto #2 or #1, he must knock one of them out or win the title from the other two who hold the title). That's certainly true of this stretch which starts from Indian Wells right upto post Wimbledon, no one got a look in last year.

My main issue with the weak era 'theory' is to do with the idea that Fed wasn't able to deal with Djokovic/Nadal/Murray and hence his decline was inevitable (as purported by weak era 'theory' fans). Winning 6 titles since the USO doesn't suggest it's quite as simple as that. It was easy to explain away the 3 titles last year, (Djokovic/Nadal were tired) and then Rotterdam and Dubai this year because they didn't draw a full slate of top players and because Rotterdam is indoors and Dubai was very fast hardcourts. Now Indian Wells has been won with Fed beating Nadal it's easy to dismiss because he didn't face Djokovic and because Djokovic/Nadal were saving themselves for big tournaments. I don't buy this, I don't think Fed ever made these excuses during his dominant years when indeed, he won these less important tournaments as well as the slams (and he was the same age as Nadal/Djokovic now. I'm the first to admit Fed has a long way to go and he's got more to prove for some but he's certainly doing a reasonable job of undermining the 'weak' era theory.

Well the weak era theory is nonsense. How can any era with Federer, Nadal on clay be weak.

Infact, I believe the mighty Fedman was the saviour, he saved us from a weak era for years by himself.

luciusmann

I've never heard Nadal or Djokovic make excuses and say they weren't that bothered by not winning non slam events either. Maybe some of their fans but not them.

I tend to think 5 sets is a better way of getting a result where the better player wins than 3 sets. That might explain the difference in who wins the slams v who wins other tournaments.

Just to underscore the point, look @ the following years & Fed's age:

2004: 3 slams and 3 masters titles (23) [exited 4 tournaments before finals]
2005: 2 slams and 4 masters titles (24) [exited no tournaments before finals]
2006: 3 slams and 4 masters titles plus 2 final appearances (25) [exited 1 tournament before finals]
2007: 3 slams and 2 masters titles plus 3 final appearances (26) [exited 3 tournaments before finals]

From the above (looking only @ slams and masters 1000 events), it's pretty clear that a player can dominate both slams and the master 1000 circuit without the latter having a detrimental effect on the former and not just for a year, but quite easily for several years provided a player is young (mid 20s) as Fed was. Fed did exit 4 tournaments when he was 23 but it's clear he was learning how to pace himself through the year and if you look @ the following year, no a single exit before the finals stage (quarters, semis and final) of a tournament and the following year (only 1 loss before finals). A lot has been said that what Djokovic's done is a one off last year, winning 5 masters and 3 slams was but there's no reason why Djokovic can't win 3 slams and 4 masters or 3 masters, that's been done before and not as one offs but regularly. It really does illustrate the media forget easily the achievements of the past in preference to hyping things up!

I also forgot to mention that upto 2006 or 2007, finals for 1000 series events were best of 5 sets, not best of 3, even tougher! I agree hawkeye, it's not Djokovic or Nadal who make the excuses, it's their fans of course, or other contributors.

Luciusmann. Not sure where you are coming from on this. Your facts are correct and I'm not arguing with them. However I haven't seen any excuses on this thread for Nadal/Djokovic not winning recent tournaments or saying Federer shouldn't have won them. So why bring it up here.

luciusmann

Nadal has won a few masters titles too...

Much as I understand why Masters finals were reduced to 5 sets it may have lead to a reduction in their value too?

Wasn't it that epic Rome final in 2006 between Nadal and Federer instrumental in the descision? Sadly I didn't see that as at the time I still imagined that mens tennis on the whole still consisted of Sampras/Ivanisevic style battles... But its hard to compare some of the more recent Masters victories with Rome 2006.

Unless I have misunderstood calder - I think the point is that a lot of the media and commentary in forums is doubting that it is at all possible for Djokovic to have another year like last year straight away.

As this thread is about Fed, I wouldn't expect any excuses about Djokovic/Nadal not winning these tournaments! I have seen excuses (admittedly not on this thread) but they have been around. That's fair enough, but as Fed's record above shows, what Djokovic did last year can be done to a similar level for more than a year.

As well as doing well in slams, Fed does need a few titles on the masters 1000 circuit if he's going to get to #2 or #1 easily.

Exactly ROTLA...the year Soderling beat Rafa at FO, Nadal had beaten him only a fortnight previously something like 6-0 6-1 at Rome.

Agree that Miami is key. Also if Fed enters MC we know he's probably serious about ranking...

TP. Read the last sentence of Luciusmann's penultimate post. No mention of media there. Just about fans making excuses which I don't think they have on ths thread.

amritia3ee wrote:Well the weak era theory is nonsense. How can any era with Federer, Nadal on clay be weak.

Infact, I believe the mighty Fedman was the saviour, he saved us from a weak era for years by himself.

Well, well... Clay era was strong with only two players...

Grass, Hard get no mention... and why is that so I ask??

And save that other line for elsewhere, here people are having a serious discussion.

luciusmann wrote:As this thread is about Fed, I wouldn't expect any excuses about Djokovic/Nadal not winning these tournaments! I have seen excuses (admittedly not on this thread) but they have been around. That's fair enough, but as Fed's record above shows, what Djokovic did last year can be done to a similar level for more than a year.

As well as doing well in slams, Fed does need a few titles on the masters 1000 circuit if he's going to get to #2 or #1 easily.

Of course what Djokovic did last year or something similar (3 slams multiple masters) has been done by both Federer and Nadal on more than one occasion. So both these players have "prooved" it is possible for them. I have to confess I don't see as many doubts expressed about Djokovic as time please indicated. But I believe the doubts are valid not only because Djokovic has never repeated such a year but because he has never really come close to his 2011 year. We shall see...

Thanks time please, that's exactly what I was thinking!

I agree hawkeye, Nadal's record on the 1000 circuit has been very good too. From 2005 to 2010, he averaged 3 Masters 1000 titles per year. Nadal's only weakness is that during that period, his domination of the slams didn't extend beyond Roland Garros except in 2008 and 2010. If he'd been able to win just one extra slam in 2007, he would have replaced Fed as #1 a lot sooner rather than in 2008.

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Well the weak era theory is nonsense. How can any era with Federer, Nadal on clay be weak.

Infact, I believe the mighty Fedman was the saviour, he saved us from a weak era for years by himself.

Well, well... Clay era was strong with only two players...

Grass, Hard get no mention... and why is that so I ask??

And save that other line for elsewhere, here people are having a serious discussion.

No, you've not understood my line.
I was saying how can any era with: Federer, nadal on clay, be weak. My line applied to all surfaces.

calder106, they haven't on this thread, I didn't say they had on this specific thread but they have done on others. I did mention the media in my post though and I spent a fair amount talking about the media. It is mostly the media who've said Djokovic can't repeat last year and it's some contributors on this thread who've said Fed's win in Indian Wells doesn't mean much, which I agree, on it's own doesn't (but it's on the back of 2 other recent wins).

Okay, premature to say Fed will be No.2 but....if he wins Madrid, he will be and unless Nadal wins Rome next week, Fed looks likely to stay there for Roland Garros.

Quite an achievement if he manages it, who would have thought Fed would win a clay court title again (with Djokovic and Nadal to contend with)? Rome will still be the stern test though....

Well lets remember luciusmann that should Federer win in Madrid on clay he will have done so without having to beat Djokovic or Nadal. I'd fully expect Federer to win it now considering his opposition from here on in.

its not his fault rafa or novak couldn't reach the stage he is at in the tournament, what's your point? that it is a tainted victory?
i ask out of curiosity, as some people can get rather touchy, so please dont do the same thoughts?

Federer has two tough matches, in Tipsy and the winner of Berdy-DelPo.

But you have to fancy him as huge favourite in SF and F.

Federer's slice backhand was working very well, and his serve was amazing. With those two weapons, he should be able to beat those other 3 guys.

But even if he wins Madrid, Nadal can still take back the #2 spot by winning Rome. Even though Rafa lost to Verdasco yesterday, he's still the favorite to win Rome IMO.

LuvSports! wrote:its not his fault rafa or novak couldn't reach the stage he is at in the tournament, what's your point? that it is a tainted victory?
i ask out of curiosity, as some people can get rather touchy, so please dont do the same thoughts?

Well I suppose it kind of stems from other fans who were posting that kind of stuff when Murray reached the Australian Open Final in 2011 (or was it 2010)? People on 606 were already lining up their excuses in case of a Murray win with stuff like it shouldn't count as he hasn't beaten Federer or Nadal and other connected stuff trying to discredit him. My point here is that you can paint it as another win on clay but it is now a fully expected one considering others have fallen at the wayside so though it may not be tainted it certainly isn't as impressive as if he had beaten Djoko or Nadal en route to the win.

lydian wrote:But you have to fancy him as huge favourite in SF and F.

Well everybody fancied Rafa has the huge favourite against Verdasco and Nole a very big favourite against Tipsy but what happenned?
So nothing is garunteed for Fed unless he wins it, return to form Del Po will be the toughest test than Rafa or Nole in this surface.

Toughest test maybe, but Fed is still fave to win.

Raonic has been the sternest test so far. Gasquet was relatively easy, I had expected a 3-setter with Ferrer, but he imploded with DFs at crucial points.

W/UEs -- Federer - 17/16, Ferrer - 20/31.

Berdych and DelPo can just hammer Federer into submission by attacking his BH. Dolgo played well, but just could not hang on. Verdasco was emotionally spent.

Two potential good matches, if Federer wants #2 really badly. IMO, he does not really care for the ranking, but titles, perhaps, yes.

Both Nadal and Federer will be tied at 20, if Federer wins Madrid. Fantastic.

Federer is so amazing!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:its not his fault rafa or novak couldn't reach the stage he is at in the tournament, what's your point? that it is a tainted victory?
i ask out of curiosity, as some people can get rather touchy, so please dont do the same thoughts?

Well I suppose it kind of stems from other fans who were posting that kind of stuff when Murray reached the Australian Open Final in 2011 (or was it 2010)? People on 606 were already lining up their excuses in case of a Murray win with stuff like it shouldn't count as he hasn't beaten Federer or Nadal and other connected stuff trying to discredit him. My point here is that you can paint it as another win on clay but it is now a fully expected one considering others have fallen at the wayside so though it may not be tainted it certainly isn't as impressive as if he had beaten Djoko or Nadal en route to the win.

So now by saying that Federer's win is not impressive because he won't have to face Nadal and Djokovic to win the title are you agreeing to people who said the same things about Murray?

graf_the_greatest wrote:Federer is so amazing!

You've seen the light... Now go on and tell us that you don't hate Federer...

Fed definitely would care more for the Madrid title than the points it awards but as was said on this thread, what it means is that Fed will be ranked second for Rome and it could potentially means Nadal is placed in Djokovic's side of the draw (instead of Fed's)! It may be the case that Djokovic might not make the semis in Rome but given the players who've complained this week, I'm sure he very well might....in which case, could Nadal beat Djokovic and Federer back to back over two consecutive days (if Nadal's on Djokovic's side of the draw)? Certainly isn't an easy challenge.

I agree CC, it would have been better if Fed had faced Djokovic or Nadal but he will play one of them in the grand slams in less than a month's time and I, like a lot of Fed fans, will see if Fed's improvement is real or a mirage and would like to see him tested against the current best.

It is curious, after Fed's early exit @ Miami, it seemed Fed's chances of reaching No.2 before RG had faded away but I had felt it would only take one slip up from Nadal and Fed would be back in it! Whether Fed gets to and stays No.2 is entirely up to him now. Nadal winning Rome wouldn't be enough either if Fed is in the final too, because Fed will have gained 510 points, whereas Nadal gains 400 (Nadal has less to gain because even though he lost the final, he did well, whereas Fed did so badly and thus has more to gain). What's remarkable though is that Fed is now in contention for a second masters 1000 title this year, out of the 3 he's entered, very impressive show of form so far! You have to go back to 2006 when Fed last won 2 masters title in the beginning of the year...basically, a very long time ago!

spuranik wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:its not his fault rafa or novak couldn't reach the stage he is at in the tournament, what's your point? that it is a tainted victory?
i ask out of curiosity, as some people can get rather touchy, so please dont do the same thoughts?

Well I suppose it kind of stems from other fans who were posting that kind of stuff when Murray reached the Australian Open Final in 2011 (or was it 2010)? People on 606 were already lining up their excuses in case of a Murray win with stuff like it shouldn't count as he hasn't beaten Federer or Nadal and other connected stuff trying to discredit him. My point here is that you can paint it as another win on clay but it is now a fully expected one considering others have fallen at the wayside so though it may not be tainted it certainly isn't as impressive as if he had beaten Djoko or Nadal en route to the win.

So now by saying that Federer's win is not impressive because he won't have to face Nadal and Djokovic to win the title are you agreeing to people who said the same things about Murray?

Nope just interested to see the reaction when the boot is on the other foot.

spuranik wrote:

graf_the_greatest wrote:Federer is so amazing!

You've seen the light... Now go on and tell us that you don't hate Federer...

I've already said I don't hate Federer. I also don't hate Djokovic or any other player for that matter. I just don't warm to those 2 particular players because of their behaviour which I find arrogant & smug.

Just don't ask me to fall in love with him, that's all...

The big prize is getting the other two in the same half at Paris.

Now that really would open up some possibilities!

bogbrush wrote:The big prize is getting the other two in the same half at Paris.

Now that really would open up some possibilities!

Agreed that would be interesting. Not sure it will happen though.

Well CC, if Fed gets to No.2 and crucially holds onto it (prior to RG), there's a 50/50 chance it might happen, unless you subscribe to the idea that the draws are fixed! It would be more interesting to see how Djokovic vs Nadal would go in a semi-final instead of a final, given how the rivalry has developed in the last year and a half (and Nadal's recent win).

In fact, given how things have gone so far in Madrid (and may go) and how Monte Carlo went and Miami before that, there's a lot to suggest it could very well be exiting. If Fed wins Madrid, then Nadal had already won Monte Carlo and Djokovic Miami. It does suggest that all 3 top players (regardless of the order) will bring their best to RG and Wimbledon.

We shall see but I have my doubts. To the organisers the dream final would be Nadal V Djokovic at Roland Garros (in my opinion) as they are pretty widely regarded as the two best clay courters in the world.

Well yes, it would be a dream final for sponsors and organisers because Djokovic and Nadal have met at the last 3 other grand slam finals and Nadal might be able defeat Djokovic in a best 5 and on clay.

However, in terms of what's best for Fed, most certainly Nadal in Djokovic's side of the draw and there is a 50/50 of that (if we believe the draws are random and not fixed, which I do). I do agree that the organisers and sponsors would prefer the final you've said but they probably also wanted Fed in the final in 2010 with Nadal and it never happened. It's strange how these things plan out and no two rivals have been the same final at all 4 grand slams, so I can see why there's a demand for that that final, but I am a Fed fan and I'm hoping for something else!

Yes and I am a Murray fan and I am hoping for something else as well.

You are very impressible Craig and that's why we like you.

keep it up champ.

I noticed!

Murray's consistency @ the grand slams should see him get to the semis, and maybe further but would you forecast that @ RG on clay? Should the rankings change on Monday to Fed second, I think reversing the ranking is the order you'd have of favourites for RG. It was there, after all, that Federer snapped Djokovic remarkable 40+ winning streak which encompassed 6 titles plus the David Cup stretching back to the previous year.

Credit to Novak, he still kept winning afterwards and has added 3 more grand slams since. However, what has been clear is that outside of the Aussie Open, in terms of the slams, Fed and Djokovic are very closely matched, with Fed having an edge on clay and Djokovic on hard court, so it's no surprise I prefer Nadal to play Djokovic in the semis rather than Fed(!) it's a matter of match ups between the 3.

To be honest I'd be content with another RG semi-final for Andy just now as clay is clearly his weakest surface though that doesn't mean I think he is no good on the surface. He'll more than likely face Rafael Nadal (greatest clay-courter of all-time) or Novak Djokovic (world No.1 and one of the very best players in the world on clay) in the semis and hence is where his problems start.

Agree, a RG semi would be good but lets remember that its not a poor return for anyone but Nadal.

I think Murrays issue is that he is vulnerable to a few others here. I'd not bet a lot on him making the last four. A lot, as always for all of them, depends on the draw.

Yes bogbrush but surely that puts to bed certain posters labelling Andy as 'crap' or no good on clay. After all here we are talking about the perfectly feasible possibility of him reaching the semi at RG. Surely not if he is so crap on clay it would mean a certain First or Second Round exit.

How could he be 'crap' on clay when he outclassed Nadal at Monte Carlo for over a set until injured and had mps against Djokovic?

Whoever says he's crap on clay knows nothing, though I don't know who really holds that opinion.

Oh there are comments floating around on here bogbrush. You must have seen them. As for Federer this win in Madrid could work both ways for him. Obviously, a big boost winning a Masters on clay but as he expends energies, Nadal and Djokovic now have an enforced rest so get a little recharge of batteries so as to speak.

One worry for Fed is fully adjusting to this type of clay before having played the 'real' stuff first...but then he's usually good at adapting - just thinking ahead to Rome next week.

I think Federer could play almost anything before an event; all he really has to do is get his body ok, adaptability isn't an issue.

As for fitness he's just taken a lengthy break. I wouldn't be surprised if he dumped Rome but this is no problem.

Winning a title on clay definitely would give Fed a boost, you have to go back to 2009 when he last managed it and back then he was very much in ascendancy (making all the slam finals: contrast that with 2010 & 2011, just one slam final each year).

I felt back when Fed lost in Miami in R3 to Roddick that losing in Miami so early wasn't devastating. It's proven so now, but actually, what was imperative for Fed was to establish himself on clay and win a title on this surface, which he's now got a chance to do. Doing this would assure him of #2 and show a clear statement of intent.

The statement of intent wasn't so much for RG but more for Wimbledon. Even last year when Fed got to the final of RG, it was in spite of his somewhat lackluster performances (by his standards) up until then. By then he'd lost to Nadal twice and Djokovic twice (as well as Melzer, in str8 sets). This year he's beaten Nadal once and lost to him once and lost to Roddick (in a very close match) and to Isner in the Davis Cup. I think it's fair to say most people would agree that the chances of finding Roddick or Isner in the latter stages of tournaments is low and given the David Cup has not really been a priority for Fed, the loss there doesn't indicate much. His loss to Nadal is as we might expect but Fed has beaten him too and even in Fed's heyday, when he won most the slams in a year, he lost to Nadal.

Getting to #2 is a crucial stepping stone for Fed for his overall game plan for the year and it's crucial he stays there, the biggest help it could give him is @ the USO, which I think, like many posters on here, is still a possibility for him.

if murray were to face the likes of berdych, del potro or raonic i would favour these guys if they were to face murray.