#1 ranking

noleisthebest wrote:Fed has nothing left to prove, he is too old and successful  in order to finish like Connors or Hewitt. (nothing wrong with those two either...showed how much they loved the game).

Imagine if you were 37 and number one....you would probably be playing your best tennis, and say it honestly - would you retire at that moment?

Fed will play as long as he feels he can win, and probably time his exit around Basel where he started as a ballboy.

That's the main question here

It's a consideration. At 37 i would feel tempted, because there's nothing more to expect from there. And the whole "play out of love for the sport" thing has been already going on for 6 years now.
We do not know how crippled he steps out of bed during tournaments, nor we see the tension that comes with slams. After AO he clearly revealed he would be glad if all that is over.
Yet fans like SB kinda insist he'll go on to the point when he can't no longer hold his racquet...i think that's not fair.

gallery play wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Fed has nothing left to prove, he is too old and successful  in order to finish like Connors or Hewitt. (nothing wrong with those two either...showed how much they loved the game).

Imagine if you were 37 and number one....you would probably be playing your best tennis, and say it honestly - would you retire at that moment?

Fed will play as long as he feels he can win, and probably time his exit around Basel where he started as a ballboy.

That's the main question here

It's a consideration. At 37 i would feel tempted, because there's nothing more to expect from there. And the whole "play out of love for the sport" thing has been already going on for 6 years now.
We do not know how crippled he steps out of bed during tournaments, nor we see the tension that comes with slams. After AO he clearly revealed he would be glad if all that is over.
Yet fans like SB kinda insist he'll go on to the point when he can't no longer hold his racquet...i think that's not fair.

Yes, but therein lies the catch!

How can you stop loving something...if anything...he is probably loving tennis even more now he knows the end is coming.

But you are right, once his body creaks and hurts too much to get out of bed, he’ll certainly stop.

I think that’s why he is playing so little, skipping clay...because he wants to delay that moment as long as possible.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I want Federer to only play Nadal on faster courts from here and get the head to head closer. It was 10-23, now a respectable 15-23. If he closed to within half a dozen and given the clay effect, it would cease to be a conversation piece in debates.

So you are one of those Fed fans who were always saying H2H did not matter but were secretly bothered by it?

I could not care less about the H2H.  If Fed were to play Rafa 10 more times, I would obviously want him to win 10 times.  But I have no particular desire seeing them play again - even if Fed may now have answers to Rafa's game.  I find Rafa's game repulsive, so the more he loses in the early rounds the better.

My dream, as ever, is to see Fed in Wimbledon semifinal together with three youngsters - the likes of Shapovalov, Kyrgios and Dimitrov.  And this year - unlike in the past - I am starting to think it might even happen.

No, I am one of those fans who gets irritated by it being trotted out and I don’t enjoy having irritants around while I’m in a debate.

Federer retiring at the top would disappoint me because in such a position he might have delighted us with even more amazing tennis and accomplishments.

I hope he goes when the seam of gold is well and truly fully mined.

bogbrush wrote:I don’t enjoy having irritants around while I’m in a debate.

Irritants are integral part of forum debates. I normally just ignore opinions that I find too silly. I am certainly not going to wish for more Fed vs Nadal matches just to silence silly opinions. That is like tail wagging the dog.

bogbrush wrote:Federer retiring at the top would disappoint me because in such a position he might have delighted us with even more amazing tennis and accomplishments.

I hope he goes when the seam of gold is well and truly fully mined.

Fully agree.

GP, I think you are attacking a caricature of my position rather than my real position.  You seem to imply a stark choice between either going out at #1 or playing 4 more years even when he can no longer hold the racquet.

But I do not think the reality so stark.  I prefer it when players go when their career has naturally run its course.  I am not saying they have to play for years beyond that.  But a player who is at #1 is hardly in a position where the natural arc of their career is done.  Yes, Fed is almost 37, so the ending may come fairly abruptly, but it is not here yet - not when he won 3 out of the last 4 slams he entered and is the bookies' favorite to win Wimbledon.

Federer is leading h2h v Rafa off clay.  A bad match up means nothing anyway.  Nadal gets his ass kicked by Brown, Darcis, Rosol, Soderling (in his best tournament), Kyrgios, Muller.  That's the end of the stupid h2h debate.  Nadal isn't an all round player - which is why the little bitch doesn't shut up about hard courts being mean to him.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Federer retiring at the top would disappoint me because in such a position he might have delighted us with even more amazing tennis and accomplishments.

I hope he goes when the seam of gold is well and truly fully mined.

Fully agree.

Absolutely - and I am bewildered at the heat that this debate has generated.  

Fed will make his own mind up, but if he manages something like Sampras's exit (no need for an exact copy with a slam win!) that might about as good as it gets.  Sampras's seam of gold was well and truly mined out - he was #17 and on a downwards trajectory of some 2-3 year's standing during which he had been able to sustain runs to Slam Finals but was getting cuffed if facing the next generation.  I think Fed will be mined out when he can no longer hope to thread his way deep into a Slam draw and win the odd lesser tournament on his schedule.

The obvious place to bow out if injury doesn't take it from him is Basel, or maybe the WTF, but then the question arises if he is still enjoying it and is good enough to make the WTF on his truncated schedule, why not carry on....?

bogbrush wrote:Federer retiring at the top would disappoint me because in such a position he might have delighted us with even more amazing tennis and accomplishments.

I hope he goes when the seam of gold is well and truly fully mined.

Might have..but it also might be great timing

bogbrush wrote:Federer retiring at the top would disappoint me because in such a position he might have delighted us with even more amazing tennis and accomplishments.

I hope he goes when the seam of gold is well and truly fully mined.

There will always be a what if for athletes going out on top. I always remember Calzaghe retiring. In my view he had 2-3 fights in him max and I always wanted him to batter Froch who gave it the biggun he could do Calazaghe and he wouldn't have had a chance in hell. Towards the back end Joe fought Hopkins and Jones Jr who frankly were past it, but he still had the magic.

It's like with Phelps. Could easily still be competing now and would still be ahead of the field.

I've no issue with anyone ever walking away at the top with more to give. If anything I think it answers more questions of their own talent and ability than say going away a shell of what you once were. 

If anything there is a romanticism with going out on top or going out swinging. There will be proponents for both. Some athletes who are at the top will know when they are about to reach the cusp of the tipping point when performance has reached a maturity level. Look at Bolt. Didn't even cross the finishing line in his last race. That image will stick in the mind for a long time.

What if's are the cornerstone of any sporting debate. Going out with more to give is the more tantalising one.

summerblues wrote:GP, I think you are attacking a caricature of my position rather than my real position.  You seem to imply a stark choice between either going out at #1 or playing 4 more years even when he can no longer hold the racquet.

to be honest, i think you made a caricature yourself by sort of implying retiring as #1 at 37 is a criminal thing to do, you utterly hate it. Which to me is seriously over the top.  

But hey, we want the same thing: Federer to play like he has been for the last 12 months for as long as possible.

I think considering Federer has just won a Slam and is enjoying tennis, it would be stupid for him to retire. It doesn't even matter what we think - He'll go when he's ready or when he is forced to.  Not when we say :P

gallery play wrote:to be honest, i think you made a caricature yourself by sort of implying retiring as #1 at 37 is a criminal thing to do, you utterly hate it.

I said I utterly hated it.  The references to it being "a criminal thing to do", or to forcing him to play for "4 years when he can no longer lift a racquet" are of your construction - ergo you are attacking your own caricature of what I am saying.  Anyway, I am happy to agree to disagree.

gallery play wrote:But hey, we want the same thing: Federer to play like he has been for the last 12 months for as long as possible.

Agreed here

Holy shit though...  20 slams.  At 36.... another.

His final duty is to protect the sports highest achievements and records from the blight of the roadrunners until the next generation of players can take up the responsibility.

At the moment I see him like a parent working on beyond normal retirement age to keep the family business healthy until his kids are able to take it over. It’s still his passion but the youngsters need to step up.

The main records and achievements are safe

For me the two big headline records are Slams and overall weeks at #1, with slams being the most important.

Both feel safer than they have done since the end of 2012, the last time when I thought they really looked pretty safe.  I think Fed can do more to protect the slam record than weeks at #1.   One more slam is achievable, and I think that the difference is big between Nadal needing another 4 to tie and 5 to win and needing 5 to tie and 6 to win.  A stint at #1 is arguably even more firmly within Fed's grasp, but I doubt that he can put in a sufficient stint to make as big a difference to the safety of his #1 record (Djoko is 79 weeks behind so it's already pretty safe) as I think one more slam would make to the safety of his slam record.

The more 'invincible' records are things like the astonishing consistency of his runs of consecutive Slam F, SF, QF, & his other unbeaten runs &c &c &c.  Those are of more interest to tennis buffs, and I think really buttress his true greatness, but they are more convincing as back ups to the holder of the slam & #1 records rather than as 'catch-up' arguments in relation to being behind in either or both category/ies.

bogbrush wrote:I was thinking of Rotterdam too. It should be easy to get the 160 points needed

v2 leads the way again.

Djok never had any hope of catching Fed's Wn1 or Slam total, Barry.  The only people who thought so (quite a lot of people, sadly) fail to understand trends, stats, and common sense.  He was too far behind to make any dint when entering his 30s. Nadal still has an outside chance of catching Fed's Slam total - but he's the only one who has ANY chance.

Fed's Wn1 total will likely last 50+ years.  His Consec WN1 will certainly last that long. The tragic thing is people see a player dominating and then declare them the next Federer.  There is no Next Federer. Not for a LONG time. No doubt when the next big player starts dominating, all we'll hear is how Federer's 20 slams (or more) is in jeopardy... sigh.

Daniel wrote:Djok never had any hope of catching Fed's Wn1 or Slam total, Barry.  The only people who thought so (quite a lot of people, sadly) fail to understand trends, stats, and common sense.  He was too far behind to make any dint when entering his 30s. Nadal still has an outside chance of catching Fed's Slam total - but he's the only one who has ANY chance.

Fed's Wn1 total will likely last 50+ years.  His Consec WN1 will certainly last that long. The tragic thing is people see a player dominating and then declare them the next Federer.  There is no Next Federer. Not for a LONG time. No doubt when the next big player starts dominating, all we'll hear is how Federer's 20 slams (or more) is in jeopardy... sigh.

I agree with most of this, but express myself with natural caution!  I never thought Djoko would catch up with the slam haul, and I agree that weeks at #1 is pretty safe.  My point was a relative one: Fed can do more to increase the safety of his slam record winning another slam he can do to the safety of his weeks at #1 with a few more weeks.

I think predictions of the next Federer (rather like the next George Best) are usually pretty wide of the mark, and often in a self-fulfilling way because the pressure gets to the guy - but it is worth remembering that it was less than 16 years ago that Sampras retired with an extraordinary record of 14 slams including 7 Wimbledons, so I think predicting that Fed's records will last for a very long time is also fraught with risk.

If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Yes, with the slight proviso that if he was a complete twat I'd not.

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Hear hear - absolutely to that.  I was pleased when Sampras overhauled Emerson, although I did not like Sampras as a player, because it made the slam record 'clean', and he was brilliant.  He handed over the torch pretty gracefully too.  If some other genius emerges, then I'm all for that.  After all, it's well and good being a fan of Borg's then McEnroe's genius, but you've got to watch someone else when they stop - and the same will be so for Federer soonish.

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

That is not going to happen.

Ever.

barrystar wrote:

I think predictions of the next Federer (rather like the next George Best) are usually pretty wide of the mark, and often in a self-fulfilling way because the pressure gets to the guy - but it is worth remembering that it was less than 16 years ago that Sampras retired with an extraordinary record of 14 slams including 7 Wimbledons, so I think predicting that Fed's records will last for a very long time is also fraught with risk.

I disagree.  Connors' 160 cons weeks lasted 30 years.  20+ Slams in the male game has happened once.  I doubt you'll see it beaten in your life time (unless by Nadal - although his chances are going up in smoke too). We'll see.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Yes, with the slight proviso that if he was a complete twat I'd not.

Unlikely to have grace and being a twat. They don;t fit together! Grace is a byproduct of class.

Hendry was a bit of a twat.  Ronnie O Sullivan is no angel (although he speaks his mind absent of PR shit).  Taylor neither.  Federer is the only great I can think of who is truly likable universally.

Daniel wrote:Hendry was a bit of a twat.  Ronnie O Sullivan is no angel (although he speaks his mind absent of PR shit).  Taylor neither.  Federer is the only great I can think of who is truly likable universally.

Hendry and Taylor are no geniuses, just crafty, talented players. ....nor Hendry is a twat actually. Just a bit arrogant.

Federer is that talented cause he is good hearted. I think Ronnie is also a very nice guy...a bit depressed that's all.

Taylor as in darts.

Daniel wrote:Taylor as in darts.

I had worked it out......still not a genius. A big fish in a very small pound!

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Yes, with the slight proviso that if he was a complete twat I'd not.

Unlikely to have grace and being a twat. They don;t fit together! Grace is a byproduct of class.

Agree, even though it’s a bit of thin ice.

Tenez wrote:

Daniel wrote:Hendry was a bit of a twat.  Ronnie O Sullivan is no angel (although he speaks his mind absent of PR shit).  Taylor neither.  Federer is the only great I can think of who is truly likable universally.

Hendry and Taylor are no geniuses, just crafty, talented players. ....nor Hendry is a twat actually. Just a bit arrogant.

Federer is that talented cause he is good hearted. I think Ronnie is also a very nice guy...a bit depressed that's all.  

I liked Hendry, he knew how to carry on, he’d be Nole of snooker maybe.

Ronnie is indeed very similar to Fed as a character (plus a genius), nice guy with no guile.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Yes, with the slight proviso that if he was a complete twat I'd not.

Unlikely to have grace and being a twat. They don;t fit together! Grace is a byproduct of class.

Agree, even though it’s a bit of thin ice.

Was Maradona a genius?

noleisthebest wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Yes, with the slight proviso that if he was a complete twat I'd not.

Unlikely to have grace and being a twat. They don;t fit together! Grace is a byproduct of class.

Agree, even though it’s a bit of thin ice.

Was Maradona a genius?

A sporting genius, yes.  Without any doubt at all.

noleisthebest wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:If someone comes along with even more talent than Federer, I'd want him to break Fed's records.

Yes, with the slight proviso that if he was a complete twat I'd not.

Unlikely to have grace and being a twat. They don;t fit together! Grace is a byproduct of class.

Agree, even though it’s a bit of thin ice.

Was Maradona a genius?

Certainly a genius to me. And a very nice guy too....a bit of a child mind who took the wrong path at times... but a good guy. Proof he is a big fan of federer. They know one when they see one.

Ronnie head butted officials...  And is no angel.  You telling me that's grace?  he's a genius and born winner... and still not graceful.  You've come up with a rather fantastic statement that isn;t based on fact.

Nothing. No one has only a pure "Good side". Even Jesus whos is meant to forgive everyone is coming back with a split tongue with the aim to judge us all the harsh way.

Ronnie is not a twat, vulgar person.

Well, I doubt Jesus will be doing anything, but that aside, the whole point is you are judged at death - if you believe in that.  I don't. Religion is just a form of control. A way for rulers to stay rich and powerful and for the silly general public to live with it in the deluded belief they will get their just rewards when they are dust. It's the biggest, most laughable, scam that has ever been sold.

Tenez wrote:Nothing. No one has only a pure "Good side". Even Jesus whos is meant to forgive everyone is coming back with a split tongue with the aim to judge us all the harsh way.

Ronnie is not a twat, vulgar person.

Not everyone, only those who ask for forgiveness.

Btw, where did you get the “split tongue” reference from?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Nothing. No one has only a pure "Good side". Even Jesus whos is meant to forgive everyone is coming back with a split tongue with the aim to judge us all the harsh way.

Ronnie is not a twat, vulgar person.

Not everyone, only those who ask for forgiveness.

Btw, where did you get the “split tongue” reference from?

Revelations.

Can you quote the verse?

As far as I know only a serpent has a forked tongue.

I read it a long time ago...so I just checked and you are right..not split but with a two-edge sword as a tongue.

You probably meant this:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.”
(Matthew 10)

No - It's in the revelation of St John.

1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks; 1:13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle. 1:14 And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 1:15 and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice as the voice of many waters. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Tenez wrote:No - It's in the revelation of St John.

1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks; 1:13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle. 1:14 And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 1:15 and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice as the voice of many waters. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Ok.

Main thing there is no forked tongue, that was what I found strange in your post.

Also not sure with what reference you used it for with Ronnie or Maradona.

I never saw Hendry as a genius as per se. He was just so clinical when others made mistakes. Watching his encounters with White were a frustration on many levels. Ronnie is a genius. He could just show up on given day and make ridiculous breaks, whereas other players I see need to play themselves in before hitting their stride.

Taylor, again super consistency. Probably not the most natural thrower. Always remember the late Sid Waddell declaring Barney the most natural thrower he ever saw, as in for example when Taylor threw he did the whole "stacker" if the first dart was below the treble bed, whereas if he landed above it, he would switch to 19's. It was an intriguing insight by Sid.

Does being a twat matter? Not so much to me. It's their ability I care more about watching than whether they are a nice guy or not.

In relation to snooker, I think that the standard has just raced up in more recent years.  For me what is absolutely astounding is the break-building abilities of nearly all of them, how often they nervelessly take on some absolutely horrible colour in the middle of a break which in the old days would have had most of them settling for 40-50 in the bank and position.  Nowadays any player who does that gets nowhere.

In fairness to Hendry, his break-building was well ahead of the curve when he played, but I still think that nobody does it like O'Sullivan who has been instrumental in growing the quality from Hendry's time and holding his own with the new.  There's a genius IMHO.  If you can measure anything empirically in snooker it's Century breaks - look at how many O'Sullivan has vs. all the rest.

I'd say a genius is one with a special talent who can deliver it on demand.

Ronnie is up and down in terms of delivering but he is of course a very special talent. However my only hold against him is that unlike tennis we do not have decades of millions of youngsters taking the game seriously so we do not quite know what is Federer's equivalent in snooker.

Once popularity of the game reaches Asia fully and that they develop the a few good snooker academies there .....then we will have a better idea of Ronnie's real genius.

Tenez wrote:No - It's in the revelation of St John.

1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks; 1:13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle. 1:14 And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 1:15 and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice as the voice of many waters. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

John was on some pretty intense shit when he wrote all that.

The very definition of a bad trip.