Federer Says Winning Multiple Slams a Season Still ‘Doable’, Is He Right?
by Sean Randall | August 13th, 2010, 12:09 am

In an interesting interview with the BBC, Roger Federer feels that he can still win multiple Slams in a year – even three – and reach 20 total majors or beyond. ADHEREL

Speaking to BBC’s Five Live today after his win over Michael Llodra, Federer said, “Having won three Grand Slams per season three times, and two per year a couple of times, it’s something that I think is very do-able for me.”

He also added, “At times I was one or two sets away from winning the calendar-year Grand Slam so obviously I feel that I have a great potential in Grand Slam play. But then again Grand Slams are not everything.

“I’m giving 100% for each and every tournament that I play because I don’t play a ton of tournaments I only play 16-20 per year, so I’m not over-playing, and that keeps the fire burning.”

Is Federer right, or is this proof that tennis does have a drug problem (Federer must be on drugs to make such a statement).

Well, for me I think he’ll get to 20, it just won’t be that easy as winning three Slams in a season.

Federer just turned 29 and I don’t know how many players have ever won four or more slams AFTER turning 29 aside from Andre Agassi. And Agassi is not like Federer.

Andre was a strategizer, a controller who picked his spots and moved opponents around the court chipping away at their weaknesses and breaking them down mentally.

Federer relies more on precision, timing and footwork. All of which are subject to greater erosion in later years and especially so with a player like Federer who has logged a lifetime of miles already under his Nike’s.

Agassi also won those four Slams arguably in a post-Pete, pre-Federer generational “soft spot”. Federer will have to score four more at time when rivals like Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic will be or are already in their 24-26 prime playing years. And let’s not forget Juan Martin Del Potro who still has plenty of room to run assuming he can get healthy and guys like Tomas Berdych and Robin Soderling.

And health really will be the key. If Roger can remain healthy through his 33rd birthday, there will be 13 Slams titles up for grabs during that period the next four years and a month. And as I always say someone will be winning those 13 Slams. Nadal can’t win them all and if not’s Federer winning the others then who?

Murray? Djokovic? Nalbandian? Berdych? Perhaps. At best Nadal gets half – let’s call it seven – leaving six for…???

But Federer will get a few more and if he does close in on 20 he’ll cut back on his schedule if needed to give himself the best chance at that number. So I do think getting to 20 and winning a couple Slams next year or in 2012 is doable. However, I don’t think three in a season is.

Bottom line, when Federer is asked these types of questions what is he suppose to say, “No, the days of me winning 2-3 Slams a year are over. I’m 29 now, I’ll be happy with one Slam a year”? Come on.

Tennis is a mental game, a confidence game and top champions like Federer are virtually programmed to go into every Major tournament they enter believing they can win it. That’s the attitude you have to take and by the sound of it Federer still has the right focus and belief. Whether he can translate that confidence into more Slams remains to be seen.

You Might Like:
Federer Bumped by Simon at Masters Cup; Murray Ousts Roddick
What Rafael Nadal Likes About Australia: The Heat Which Adds Speed, Bounce To His Shots
Pete Sampras: Andy Murray Is On His Way To Doing Great Things!
Sweet 16: Serena Williams Wants More Grand Slams Titles
A List Of Novak Djokovic’s 2015 Achievements

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

78 Comments for Federer Says Winning Multiple Slams a Season Still ‘Doable’, Is He Right?

ron Says:



Sean Randall Says:

ron, I’m glad you like it.

What’s funny is the fourth story down under “Also Check out”:

Federer Still Better-er, But for How Much Longer?

Amber Says:

I understand why he has to be confident, but the idea of him ever winning multiple slams in a season is absolutely laughable. 4 spread out over the next few years? Maybe. But right now there are too many hungry guys coming up (Soderling, Berdych, DelPo) who will fight hard for the slams. Nadal is also having a beautiful resurgence, so happy to see him back on top. Roger will have to fight tooth and nail for everything from here on out.

Twocents Says:

Good take, Sean. Go Fed!

Llodra: That pink belongs to me, the French!
Fed: But it’s Myla’s favorite.
Llodra: My Lacoste costs much more.
Fed: Deal…

Twocents Says:

It’s not really about 20 or 18 or 22. it’s about Fed needs enough good reasons/excuses to hang around on the tour, about making Nike, Wilson, and Credit Suisse et al happy. Thus the “five year plan” from Fed’s trainer, the PA trial, and now “doable” 20.

While trophy-lifting will become a less and less occurance in Fed v3, fun moments like today’s session with Llodra are precious and should be plenty.

Fedend Says:

Im not surprised at all with such arrogant and disrespectful statements from him. He is known for that.

Twocents Says:

Fed has 5 years before his twins go to school. To net another 4 slams in 5 years for him is perfectly doable, technically.

However, he may have overdrafted his luck and health acounts? Who knows? Therefore, 0 to 6 slams before he hangs his Wilson is all equally possible.

blah Says:

I think he is still able of having one more multiple slams season in him (he might win the USO this year, who knows.) I don’t think he’ll get to twenty though.

Ben Pronin Says:

I don’t know if Federer is saying he’s going to continue winning 2-3 slams a year. However, logically, Federer has a chance to win at each slam. He’s won them all, so his chances are that much greater.

I like how Sean pointed out that there are some 13 slams between now and by the time Fed is 33. 20 seems like a lot by itself, but it’s only 4 more slams. This is Federer, after all.

steve Says:

Of course it is.

They said he could never win the French, but he did.

Winning multiple majors a season is something he has done several times, so he can do it again.

One to two major titles annually even in his later career is a reasonable possibility. With a little luck and a lot of preparation, the Calendar Slam might still be within his grasp. After all, Laver did it at 31, and I doubt anyone predicted he would manage it at that age, either.

It’s clear that Roger Federer is shattering all previous conceptions of what it means to be a great tennis player. People like to hold on to preconceived notions, and Federer is threatening those notions, so they reassure themselves by insisting it can’t be done.

It’s not surprising that some people are uneasy. Federer’s heading into uncharted territory, and leaping headlong into the unknown is always a little frightening.

But instead of insisting it can’t be done, why not sit back and enjoy the ride? It’s not you or I who have to train and sweat and endure the daily grind, but the players. Nothing’s at stake for us. We’re just the audience.

blah Says:

Ben- where can we realistically expect him to challenge for a slam? I am throwing French Open out, and I don’t think a lot would argue with me that his chances to win another FO is anything other than very slim. Wimbledon? Sure, but I think Nadal’s proven that he’s the number one player on Wimbledon, does anyone see Federer beating Nadal in wimbledon semis or finals? Not to mention Murray played extremely well despite losing to Nadal in semifinals this year, and with another year of solid showing there may become the #2 guy on grass. Perhaps 1 more wimbledon for him, but I don’t see him going into future wimbledons as the heavy favorite he was before. I would say his chances to pick up slams are the greatest in hardcourt, the surface that Nadal struggles with the most, so when you look at it that way, it doesn’t really look like “only 4 more slams” for me.

Ben Pronin Says:

If Federer catches fire, he can win any 1 of the 4 slams as long as Nadal is knocked out beforehand. The possibilities are incredibly low at the French, but it’s happened before. I wouldn’t rule it out entirely, although I would put it at the bottom of the list.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think Federer could still beat Nadal on grass. Agreed, he won’t be the heavy favorite, but he’s won 6 Wimbledon titles. Sometimes it’s that extra bit of experience that can make the difference between winning and losing. And even if it’s only left to the hard court slams, there are 2 per year. If he wins the US Open this year, then he’s only got 3 more to go until 20.

I’m not saying we should all just assume it’s a forgone conclusion, but I think it’s safe to say we shouldn’t bet against the former world number 1. He was written off after last year’s AO and then he went on a tear and was one set away from holding all 4 slams. Who’s to say he won’t go on another tear? And again, he doesn’t have to because 4 slams isn’t the biggest hurdle for someone who’s won 4 times that.

blah Says:

Meh, I think it’s doable, but I think he’ll come up one or two slams short. Out of those 16 slams he won how many of it was he just absolutely dominating the whole tour and blowing guys away. Even the g.o.a.t has to age. Another factor is that he intimidated so many players. We saw he start to lose a bit of that when Nadal stepped in, and then Djoko/Murray/DelPo chipped away a little more of that, but when guys like Berdych and Soderling, players who had bad records against him, knocked a 23 consecutive slam semifinalist out in consecutive quarterfinal at slams, and when some guys are pushing him to long matches in the first two rounds of slams, it just looks like there’s going to be a lot of players motivated to take out the great Federer in slams whereas before they prayed they weren’t in his section.

blah Says:

Just a point on the article – “If roger can remain healthy through his 33rd birthday.” I think Fed’s slam chances are just as dependent on whether or not Nadal remains healthy though Fed’s 33rd birthday.

blah Says:

And like the article mentioned- Agassi is a freak of nature. Just watch his 05 USO final versus Federer, Had he won the third set tie breaker he probably wouldn’t have went away without a fight in the fourth set. Ridiculous how he could play at that level that deep into a slam at that age.

Fedend Says:

Federer has won 4 out of 11 slams in the last 3 yrs. This happened when he was 26 to 28 yrs old. It would be a miracle if he would be able to take 2 more in the next 3 years.

Ben Pronin Says:

Nadal won 5 of those, and Del Potro and Djokovic each got one. So Federer is winning the second most number of slams. That’s a bad thing?

Fedend Says:

It would be a serious crime if I call it as “bad”. By no means it is bad. Even his performance in the last two slams can be labeled as bad.
But I am just projecting ONLY based on his own standards and performance in the last three years.

Fedend Says:

A 26 yr old Federer in his prime fresh from his record and confidence of taking 8 out of 11 slams was able to take only 4 out of the next 11.
Now Federer is 29. He is injury prone now, he is slowed down a bit and also has lost his aura of invincibility.
Please compare the Fed at 26 and the Fed now who is 29 and tell me realistically how many he can take out of the next 11 or so.

Fedend Says:

Even his performance in the last 2 slams CANNOT be labeled as bad.

steve Says:

I think people are underestimating Federer’s resources.

The Federer of 2004-07 was using maybe a little under 50% of his game. He didn’t need any more, because he could hit a clean winner from the backcourt anytime he wanted, and it was more reliable to play like that than to try to use more difficult shots.

But that still leaves 50% untapped. He has three big things going for him that aren’t going to diminish with age: an endless arsenal of shots, the ability to read and anticipate his opponents’ plays, and a keen court sense.

With sufficient will and ingenuity, he can fashion new tactics that will allow him to play at a very high level consistently enough to win many more times.

Maybe five or six options in any given situation, where most people would have only one. At this point, he may not be able to make one or two of them work consistently. That still means he he has at least three options. Possibly four.

I’m not old enough to have seen Laver play, but I’m guessing only he had a comparable depth and variety to his game.

Adding just one shot–the drop shot–allowed him to win the French for the first time. And he’s only accepted the need to use that shot regularly for a year or so. Give him another year and he’ll figure out half a dozen new ways to use it.

The biggest test is mental. Is he flexible and youthful enough in mind and spirit to embrace the needed changes and create new methods and tactics? If he is, he can continue at an extremely high level.

“Agassi is a freak of nature”

LOLs. If Agassi is a freak of nature, then Federer is an alien from a parallel universe. The rules that didn’t apply to Agassi apply even less to Federer.

If Agassi can make a major final at 35, Federer can WIN a major final at 35.

Fedend Says:

Even thought Fed’s record in GSs is a cut above the rest of the other GOAT contenders, he has a dubious distinction of losing 5 out of 7 GS finals to his main rival on ALL three surfaces. I wonder why he didnt use the remaining 50% of his game to set the record straight.

Fedend Says:

One can continue to speculate and hope that Federer will ressurrect his career.
But the FACT remains that he is on a steady decline since winning the USO 07 after turning 26.
His “GAME” never really improved during any stage after that. His 2009 results were better than his 2008 results, but that was definitely not because his better “game”. Fed2008 would beat Fed2009 on any day and on any surface.

Seungbin Says:

I have some reasons to believe his confidence as meaningful.The X factor deciding over the winner of majors is not just the matter of skills, power or precision; it is about how much you can adjust to the new circustance laden with new and healthy guys with youth and power. This means how fast you can work out new solution to new questions, rather than how long and tenaciously you can hold out with your own techniques (That’s why I agree with fedrerer when he pointed out that Andy Murray failed to advanced impressively even after he had lost once again to Andy) For the moment, The only players who can belong to such level with the consitent base are Nadal and Federer. These guys can dig out a special and fatal weapon “on the spot while playing game”. This is what distinguishes them from other players like Murray and Djokovic. This is why Federer is confindent. He must find out the solution for the young guys. Nobody can even imagine what the greats like federer believe is the mechanism about how to attain such goals as 10 more majors. Even a few of greats can tell like Sampras.

steve Says:

What can I say? He’s a stubborn, stubborn, STUBBORN guy. It took him two-three years to even consider running around his backhand on his opponents’ second serve. He used to disdain the drop shot, now he’s been forced to embrace it.

He likes to play a certain way, and he’s slow to accept change. On the other hand, wouldn’t you be too, if you were #1 and winning everything in sight for so long? If you change too much, you stand to lose more than you gain.

Trying to outhit Nadal from the baseline is futile for him, but he persisted for a long time in trying.

I made another post attempting to provide additional explanation for his stubbornness, you may read it here, should you be so inclined:


Granted, too, Federer suffers in the comparison because he made so many FO finals.

I suppose, if he had been so concerned about his win-loss record to Nadal, he could’ve tanked in the semis of the FO from 06-08 and no one would’ve been the wiser. But, being a mensch, and desirous of winning, he made his way there each time and gave it a shot.

andrea Says:

let’s just hope he can beat berdych in the next round….baby steps.

steve Says:

@andrea: Amen to that.

Fedend Says:

Federer’s losing record is not only because of clay and FO, he has lost on other 2 surfaces also.

Fedend Says:

Federer is in a state where he MUST have to beat Berdy. Now that he has proclaimed fully fit and feeling great it is a neccessity.
If Fed loses again to the bird it would really embarass him and his fans. The credibility of his injury claims is at stake.

madmax Says:

Not really Fedend. In fact not at all. Federer has beaten Berdych 7 times previously and if you look at the last 3 times Berdych has beaten federer. First time in 2004 Athens Olympics, and twice this year in Miami and Wimbledon, particularly Miami, where Fed had match point and then went on to lose in the tie breaker, that was a close call.

Secondly, at Wimbledon, three things contributed to Fed’s loss, general fatigue, Federer didn’t take Berdych seriously enough but more than that Berdych didn’t let the occasion overwhelm him, enjoyed it and played excellent tennis against federer. He was the better player on the day.

But now, Federer is in a different place.
Firstly, he won’t underestimate berdych, secondly, he is refreshed and has worked very hard on the pratcise courts to raise his game, thirdly annacone is now on board in order to help him tweak his game. I think these things need to be considered, but I agree with you, the rest is up to the Fed.

He will win.

Also, regarding the 20 slam prospect, it is very do-able and I think you have to listen to Federer’s exact words here in the BBC interview, we have this here in the UK, radio 5 livesports. It’s a good one.

Here is the link. It’s 6 minutes 14 seconds. Fed sounds great and I just think it’s wonderful that he is so motivated. People should enjoy this rather than keep having a go at Federer.

He must be so fed up with people asking him questions about when he is going to retire. It’s boring now.

Fed has said, he has a 5 year plan, so why dont people ask him that question in 5 years time?

Here’s the link: (scroll down to the mediaplayer icon).


madmax Says:

What, Federer Worry?
TORONTO –- On Thursday afternoon, Roger Federer did not sound, look or act like a player concerned with his age (29, as of last Sunday), or his ranking (No. 3 since Wimbledon, for the first time since late 2003).

After dispatching Michael Llodra, 7-6 (2), 6-3, to advance to the quarterfinals of the Rogers Cup, Federer seemed lighthearted as he laughed throughout his news conference. This did not seem like the same guy who left Wimbledon in a huff after a shocking defeat in the quarterfinals.

In fact, Federer offered these nuggets:

He confirmed that it was Llodra who asked for his shirt after the match, as a gift, Llodra told Federer, for his children. Strangely, this was not the first time that had happened. It was actually the third. Stranger still, it was not the strangest place an opponent had asked Federer for the shirt off his back. That honor went to an unnamed Brazilian player who once asked for Federer’s shirt in an elevator in Bangkok.

Later, Federer expounded on this pink shirt, which was light pink, or salmon, with ribbing on the side. His attire stood in stark contrast to that of Rafael Nadal, also sponsored by Nike, who also wore pink, but hot pink -– and by hot, we mean super, duper, extra hot -– on Wednesday night.

Come to think of it, the shirts seem to highlight the differences in the men. Federer’s look said regal. Nadal’s look said loud. Federer said the fact that both wore pink was a coincidence, adding that he picks out clothes almost a year in advance and that he will change styles for the United States Open.

“I don’t know where my head was when I chose pink,” he said. “But I like it. I’ve been getting a lot of praise for it.”

Lastly, Federer spoke wistfully about playing against a serve-and-volley player like Llodra. It reminded Federer of matches early in his career.

All of this overshadowed his next match, on Friday against Tomas Berdych, the same player who knocked Federer out of the Wimbledon quarterfinals. Berdych also beat Federer in Miami this year. That makes their quarterfinal the most intriguing of this tournament.

“I definitely have to go back and think about what didn’t go well against him,” Federer said. “He’s definitely on a run right now.”

madmax Says:

There is a fantastic photograph of Llodra and a shot he made which looks as if he is doing the splits in the air with both his arms and legs!

Llodra affectionately patted Federer on the cheek and strolled off the court bare-chested, carrying his trophy. Federer, still grinning like a schoolboy, quickly donned a replacement. “He’s won a couple of tournaments this year; I’ve only won one, so he’s doing better,” he joked in the on-court interview.

“I’ve known him 16 years, and he’s older [by] one year, so I couldn’t say no,” Federer said afterwards. It was the third time he had been asked by a fellow player, he said, and he has complied each time. “The guy one time, it was in the elevator coming back from the match, in Bangkok. He was a Brazilian.”

“You know, for me, Roger is in the legends,” Llodra said, “so it’s a good present for my kids. I talk in French, but I say, ‘You have no [choice]. Give me your shirt.'”

Life could become grim again soon — Federer will face No. 7 Tomas Berdych today, who has beaten him twice this year, including a psyche-shaking loss in the quarter-finals that snapped Federer’s run of six straight titles at Wimbledon. The pressure never truly goes away.

But for an afternoon after all these years the old times were back and the two men were like boys again, making the ball dance, laughing in the sun.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/LOST+TENNIS/3393367/story.html#ixzz0wTlOdDJ5

check it out.

also some funny comments here by both opponents, showing the mutual respect for each other.

madmax Says:

andrea Says:
let’s just hope he can beat berdych in the next round….baby steps.

August 13th, 2010 at 4:30 am

‘baby…pink steps’ andrea :)

Federer Gets Berdych Rematch, Murray Faces Hot Nalbandian Friday in Toronto Says:

[…] Federer Says Winning Multiple Slams a Season Still ‘Doable’, Is He Right? […]

maddie Says:

Underneath Federer’s cool packaged minted exterior is a character flaw. Most of us would laugh at or dislike someone making this kind of statements and arrogant predictions about themselves.

Gerry Koppe Says:

There is and never will be another player like Andre Agassi. He had a roller coaster career (much like the rest of us) and he was the closest thing to a very unlikely champion, but yet a champion he became with all the chaos in his life and yes he actually lived life (unlike many tennis pros that EAT, THINK AND LIVE tennis 24/7). He could never be duplicated (nor would another player wish to as it involved much pain along with the money, good looks and charisma).

If Fed keeps his mind and his body together he might pull it off. Agassi went through well three generations (no soft spot there for sure). He was with the McEnroe, Connors group, then moved to the Chang, Courier, Sampras group, and finally went onto the Roddick, Federer, Nadal, Blake; etc. group. So live through two more groups Fed and then you too have done an Agassi.

ron Says:


amen…he wins all the good sportsman awards, but only when he is winning on the court…what kind of good sport blames sudden injury on a Wimbeldon loss? Answer: a bad sport

ron Says:

or cries when losing a grand slam..on worldwide TV!

guy Says:

the arrogance helped him win many slams, but this is quite silly.

winning another grand slam is doable. that’s all he should be saying.
but even that is looking less and less likely.
nadal,djoko,murray and then del potro, all in their prime…fed’s past results, 2,3 a year mean little, the competition now is tougher than ever.
he’s not playing these guys as teenagers anymore.

and it’s not gonna get easier for him.
try winning a slam from outside the top 5, which is where he’ll likely be in the next year or so.
i’m not sure fed has been paying attention to the tour lately.

Skeezerweezer Says:


His awards are awarded by his peers, thankfully not subject to your crying out of “bad sport”. Your comment was that of sa “bad sport”


If Fed has a character flaw it’s this. He is human like the rest of us, but we have expectations that are laid too high because of his superhuman feats.

Skeezerweezer Says:


His awards are awarded by his peers, thankfully not subject to your crying out of “bad sport”. Your comment was that of sa “bad sport”


If Fed has a character flaw it’s this. He is human like the rest of us, but we have expectations that are laid too high because of his superhuman feats.

Skeezerweezer Says:

Sorry for the double post….traveling :(

madmax Says:

Ron and Maddie, it is very interesting what you say although I do think you need to weigh up what happened in the grand scheme of things.

Plus, bear in mind that ALL our favourite players have said things about their opponents over the years – just google it – tons of information there. Just type in any player and the comments they have said about their opponents and you are in criticism heaven!

But as this is about federer, I thought it probably best to get an expert opinion on professional sports athletes mindsets and this is what I found which can easily counter argue your points which are based on emotion and dislike of the player – not based on fact. This is what I found:

Richard E. Vatz is a professor of rhetoric and communication at Towson University.

For those of us who have been self-proclaimed conservatives for a long time, there is not a lot of ambivalence concerning our personal core values and ethics. Among our most important first premises are support for personal responsibility, avoiding dependence, and rejection complaining and whining when things don’t go our way as a result of our personal weaknesses.

One of the most difficult examples concerning one of these precepts is the question of whether one should make excuses to explain a failure. The conservative reflex is to eschew such rhetorical alibis.

Say I am in a debate, and it’s clear that my opponent got the better of me. I should not say, “I was up late last night” or “I lost some of my best evidence en route to the contest.”

I should just accept the fact that he or she beat me, while not conceding that on substance I was incorrect (a “no-excuses” policy does not mean you’re wrong in this case, just that your opponent argued/defended his/her position better than you). Furthermore, it is bad sportsmanship to imply that your opponent is unworthy and could not have won but for your atypically bad performance.

*But what if there are historical demands for your accounting truthfully for your bad performance?*

What if your greatness at the matter in question needs to be accurately accessed for the annals of a great sport?

For the first time in eight years, Roger Federer lost an opportunity to compete on Centre Court at Wimbledon for the finals. He lost to Czech Tomas Berdych decisively, 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, and 6-4.

I can tell you that in tennis — my sport for 50 years — when you lose to an opponent you should have soundly defeated, it is psychologically difficult (to say the least) not to say why that inferior chap won, especially if there is a clear reason beyond your control.

But if you do, not only do you seem petty, but you provide an opportunity for your opponent to depict you as a weak, gutless, progressive kind of guy.

And that’s what ensued when Mr. Federer attributed his losing to injury, the first mention of which occurred after the Berdych match: “I couldn’t play the way I wanted to play … I am struggling with a little bit of a back and a leg issue.”

Mr. Berdych’s reaction to Mr. Federer’s explanation for losing was the nuclear option: “I don’t know if he is just looking for some excuses after the match or something like that … I think he was 100 percent.”

There is some reason to believe Mr. Federer’s claim, as he has lost two consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals, and his play has been inconsistent (for him) very recently.

So what should Mr. Federer have done?: sucked it up and congratulated Mr. Berdych on a great victory, or explained why Mr. Federer wasn’t Mr. Federer?

One conservative’s verdict: There is nothing wrong (although this puts you at a competitive disadvantage) with publicly indicating physical problems before a tournament or match and then letting observers and writers draw their own conclusions at the results.

Otherwise, your excuse gratuitously demeans your opponent, even if he’s not an understanding guy.

After all, “understanding guys” tend to be namby-pamby wusses.

Ron/Maddie, It’s one line of comment that you might want to consider?

Guy, every top athlete has to have an air of self-confidence/arrogance to remain at the top of their game. It’s called believing in yourself, you have to have that ‘win win’ mentality. Just look at rowing. The annual cambridge/oxford tournaments, televised worldwide – the competition is fierce between both sides. One wrong beat and the race is over. Each rower HAS to believe they are going to win.

Federer is no different. None of the top guys are in terms of their belief.

Texastennis Says:

Hhm – some cloud cuckoo land mixed in with realism from Fed here. Is he going to win multiple slams in one season again? I don’t think so. Might he win four over the next few seasons – very possibly although I think not likely.

So many differences with Agassi – a critical one though is that Agassi had far fewer miles on the clock than Federer at the same age and a second critical one is that Agassi having underachieved at the same age was far more motivated than he had been earlier whereas Federer has already achieved above and beyond and I think it impossible in his situation (existing achievements plus age plus much changed family life) that he won’t (and in fact hasn’t) lost at least a little of the absolute commitment he’s had hereto for – all results indicate he has and that’s natural.

Agassi’s not a useful measure for anything – I think his career was entirely exceptional for many reasons and it’s not a yardstick for what other players might do.

grendel Says:

I posted on this topic on the wrong thread (the new one) by accident.

SD Says:

“Federer is in a state where he MUST have to beat Berdy. Now that he has proclaimed fully fit and feeling great it is a neccessity.
If Fed loses again to the bird it would really embarass him and his fans. The credibility of his injury claims is at stake.”

What kind of weird logic is this. He lost to Berdych two times, only claimed injury at Wimbledon, which if you believe or not is a different matter. So how is losing again would damage his credibility? But I don’t think he’ll lose this time. Let’s wait and see.
To beat Federer on a consistent basis, you’d have to be from Spain and named Nadal. Berdych is neither.

guy Says:


self belief has won federer many slams, true.
but think of it this way. anyone that came out now and said there is no reason fed can’t win a couple,three slams in a year in the current climate…well they’d be labelled a delusional fed fan.
and that’s exactly what federer himself is sounding like.

madmax Says:

guy, sorry but you have misread federer’s interview.

I posted the link on another thread, but I’ll say to you here, federer did NOT say that he would win 20 slams. This is the question from the interviewer and here is his reply. Listen to it and read it carefully, before you start saying that Federer is delusional.


madmax Says:

guy, this was the question from the interviewer and the reply from Federer, but the full interview is above if you follow the link.:

Asked if he would be happy to add another three to his record total of 16 major wins, he told Radio 5 live: “No, I wouldn’t, I would want to win more.”

I dont know why there is anything wrong with him “wanting to win more”. And if he puts the work in and looks after his body over the next 3 years, 3 x 4 slams = 12. Why shouldn’t federer be able to achieve 20? Even if that was 1 or even 2 a year? why is that such an insurmountable figure?

In fact guy, why not go for broke and say 25?!!!!!!! :)

maddie Says:

madmax, thanks for the excerpts you quoted above, but I interpret them as reinforcing my view that Federer was acting the bad loser in that Wimbledon defeat.

maddie Says:

@Ron, yes, can’t quite figure what they mean by these sportsmanship awards. It’s more a popularity award. Though I felt some sympathy for Federer’s tears at the AO 2009, I felt the need to shield my 10-year old son (watching with me at the time) from that. My kids were wondering at the “behavior”.

Skeezerweezer Says:

So it’s ok to cry when u win but not when u lose? It happens in all sports, wake up! Geez already

super man Says:

here is a nice article on roger. go fed, let us get the 20.


jane Says:

Yes, I figure Fed must like tennis a little bit. ; )

super man Says:

” For those of you who think the life of the average pro athlete is nasty, brutish, short, and devoted to the almighty dollar, you don’t know your Roger Federer.”

very well said mr. tignor!

super man Says:

sad to see tennis fans who try to badmouth its greatest champion. if you dont understand or cant appreciate sportsmanship award, it is your stupidity that shows.

6 sportsmanship awards in a row
7 fan popularity awards in a row.

greatest tennis champ ever.

Skeezerweezer Says:


Hope this settles your issue;


Look under “Awards”. Who votes for them. A variety of qualified persons, depending on the award. Sometimes you are voted in by “fans”, so that alone would show you Feds international appeal. Others are by pro writers, players, peers in the game, etc. Check it out before you judge it. It’s all not popularity, as in the famous ESPY award, which considers ALL sports, not Tennis.

You could also spend some time looking at Fed’s “other achievements” on his page.

Now I am going out to continue to enjoy the Dallas heat……:(


Skeezerweezer Says:

Super man

Shaaaaammmmooon!!!!! :)

super man Says:


are you shielding them from the monkeying that nadal does on court? or do you buy them rafa pants and teach them how to pick their butts in public. i am sure retarded ron must be a master in that.


maddie Says:

@Skeezerweezer, of course he can cry, but I’m just saying I felt the need to tell my impressionable 10-year old that’s not the way to be. He sees that in an adult, then he becomes just a bit weaker.

super man Says:

hello skeezerweezer,

goodluck with the dallas heat.

maddie Says:

@Skeezerweezer, my kids are not negative about things, tics or crying, Federer or Nadal.

maddie Says:

oops, that last was response to super man

Skeezerweezer Says:

Thanks maddie….I was just going to post to you a novel on that….saved me :).

super man Says:

a guy who has won 3slams a year 3times, is delusional because he thinks he can do it another time?

ok, that makes sense. he was 2sets away from a calendar slam last year. just saying.

Ellie Bean Says:

He who laughs loudest, laughs last!

I still believe Federer has plenty of gas left in his tank and will pull something out of the bag when we least expect it.

And do you know what? If he doesn’t – I don’t care cos he has given me 7 wonderful years of tennis and for that I will always be grateful.

I have no interest in any of the other maniacs whose one desire is to hammer balls up, down and across with no other thought than how hard and how fast. That is not tennis for me.

Each to their own eh?!

RZ Says:

The thing is, the past few years, people keep saying that Federer is done, and he keeps proving that he isn’t. Sure, he’s had an assist from Rafa’s injury last year. But Rafa’s dominance is likely to come and go in cycles based on knee and other injuries, and Murray and Djokovic haven’t stepped up. Berych and Soderling have proved that they can get to semis and finals but aren’t ready to win. So unless DelPo comes back strong, I’d say 20 for Fed isn’t that much of a longshot.

guy Says:


yes delusional because the circumstances on tour have vastly changed since the years he was winning 3 in a row.

and the idea he was a few sets from a calender slam is a little misleading. he was never going to win those french open finals against nadal, everyone knows that.

WTF Says:

“ok, that makes sense. he was 2sets away from a calendar slam last year. just saying.”

Not exactly. The two finals he lost were 5 setters, but you can’t say “two sets away” in separate matches. He’d have to win one before he can say he is X sets away from another, because you can’t play two sets consecutively in two different matches.

You can only say a player was X sets away if those sets were consecutive, or at least all in the same match.

2010 is a mirror of his 2008. Not that great outside of the majors. But he can still bounce back the following year like he did in 2009. Can he reach 20? I’d say so. He will need to lift his game though, because he is in a slump at the moment. If he continues playing the way he has been, he won’t do it. He’s starting to lose to players he didn’t lose to before. Age will make it harder for him to do what he did so well. He’ll have to adapt.

I think he’ll win at least another before he retires. Pete won his last at 31. Fed has time on his side.

Twocents Says:

Ellie Bean @4:56pm,


Andrew Miller Says:

If Fed was in a slump making semis or better since January 2004 through May 2010, then he truly is in a slump. Maybe he gets his 17th major.


Andrew Miller Says:

And definitely a confident player is a player who does well on tour “in streaks”. At best that means Federer is like a rich man’s Nalbandian: unbeatable in stretches, and still very beatable in stretches.

Sounds like Federer’s famous overconfidence to me. Face it – he did not crash out of the tour like Agassi, who some years really didnt play much.

I dont see Federer winning more slams without making some adjustments like the AO, where his strategy against Murray was truly brilliant. I saw a guy who actually picked on an opponent and decided to play his strengths to an opponent’s weaknesses – a concession for Federer, who usually plays as though he wants to play his opponent’s game better than the opponent plays it.

So to me if Federer plays a mature game – which takes in account that he’s not the same guy who destroyed opponents from 2004 until 2008 (he wasnt destroying opponents in 2008 or 2009, merely beating most of them) I think he’ll have his chances. But if he tries to play like the same ol’ Fed, chances are…he’ll just grow to become an old Fed.

I disagree re: Agassi and the soft spots. You cant choose your opponents and Agassi played some serious lights out tennis beyond age 29. I’m surprised he did not win more of them (more Wimbledons, US Opens, French Opens), at least from 2000 through 2004. Only one player gave him serious fits in the early part of the era: Lleyton Hewitt (who also owned Federer, briefly).

Most of Federer’s wins on Agassi came when Agassi was 34. (Federer began beating Agassi when Agassi was 33). Agassi still played incredibly well, but his body began to give up around this time. You have the awful French open 2004, a pretty bad slam season generally. 2005 was the last hurrah and 2006, he exited.

So hopefully we see a good Federer. But I think he’s not the same guy. Life is changing for Federer. Maybe he wins one or two more. Big maybe.

Andrew Miller Says:

I disagree that self-belief won Fed slams. There is a lot going on in a tennis match beyond self belief. For example, Federer beat Murray because of knowledge in the AO Final – Federer’s court sense was superior – his knowledge of the court. His patience in picking his spots was outstanding.

Those are skills and skills can atrophy. Federer can win big but he’s got to adjust.

Dory Says:

What’s wrong with someone saying that if he has done it in 5 different years? 2008 and 2010 are Nadal’s years. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 were Federer’s.

Steve Says:

It’s crazy how people are downgrading Federer’s achievements, just watch Youtube videos of him from let’s say 2001 until 2007, you’ll once again be reminded he won Slams by pure brilliance, amazing talent, seems many fed-bashers think he just won by luck. Crazy, he played tennis that was never seen before and after, on a daily basis.

madmax Says:

Steve, don’t worry about what is being said. All Federer fans know exactly what you are talking about. And you are talking the Truth.

Maddie, apologies for not replying to you. Have only just checked your response.

maddie Says:
@Ron, yes, can’t quite figure what they mean by these sportsmanship awards. It’s more a popularity award”.

Wrong. Voted for by Federer’s peers whom see him and spend time with him day in and day out on tour. Skeezer has quoted the facts to you. Check ’em out maddie.

Maddie says@:

“Though I felt some sympathy for Federer’s tears at the AO 2009, I felt the need to shield my 10-year old son (watching with me at the time) from that. My kids were wondering at the “behavior”.

August 13th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

I feel sorry that you son may not be able to experience true emotion. There’s nothing wrong in crying and to teach a child, a male at that, that it’s wrong to cry, will only cause problems in the future for him. It’s a natural human reaction. Pity that you see it as a weakness.

Ashleigh Says:

Roger has said he wants to play singles until he’s 35, (maybe doubles after that!), so that’s 6 years left to play singles… That’s also 25 more Grand Slams (this year’s USO, plus 4 GS per year x 6 more years) — you’re telling me, all you haters on here, that he can’t bag 4 more Grand Slams out of 25 chances??????

Wow, that’s just downright disrespectful to say he has ZERO chance to win 4 more in 25 chances… 4 Grand Slams in 6 years isn’t even 1 a year… OF COURSE he can win 4 more in the next 6 years!!

Of course, with 2 kids who are at an age where they get chronically sick, as most kids do, he had better stay healthy over these next 6 years, too, in order to do it!

As to him taking a calander year Slam or do 3 out of 4 in a year like before, no, that’s doubtful. I do think those glory days are behind him, because the talent pool is deep, and because he IS 29, in a sport that’s very unkind to the body… But to win 2 a year, maybe, why not? And I see him winning 1 a year for sure! After all, while he may not be burning as brightly as he did from 24–27, he’s still glowing out there! :)

maddie Says:

well, madmax, this train of conversation is probably dead by now. But Fed was weak because he was competing. Would it be fine, if you see a heavyweight boxing competition where the loser cries in the end because he lost and everybody sees it? As far as how I reacted wrt my kid, that was a mother’s moment. We have different ways about caring for what kids learn and assimilate.

Top story: Davis Cup QFs: Russia Advances, Djokovic And Serbia Stay Alive