Should Roger Federer Skip the Clay Court Season Entirely?

[gzhpcu]

Holding all four majors at the same time is exactly the same thing as winning them in the same calendar year. The achievement is exactly the same. It's being pedantic to say otherwise in my view. Navratilova won 7 slams in a row! Neither Laver or Budge did that. It's an even greater achievement.

Stotty, I beg to differ. History shows only two men achieved winning all 4 the same year. It shows dominace during a particular year. The term Grand Slam has benn misused. As a tradionalist, Budge and Laver are the only true Grand Slam winners among the men.

[stotty]

Stotty, I beg to differ. History shows only two men achieved winning all 4 the same year. It shows dominace during a particular year. The term Grand Slam has benn misused. As a tradionalist, Budge and Laver are the only true Grand Slam winners among the men.

A far as I am aware Novak is the only other male player to have held all for majors at the same time outside of the traditional Grand Slam, so in that sense the achievement could be looked at as even more unique, as he is the only player to have done it. In fact, Novak the only player to have held all 4 Grand Slams and the Year-End Championship at once. I don't think they had a year-end tournament in Laver and Budge's day so it may not be a record those two could have achieved anyway. Everything has to be taken into account when backtracking through history.

If many more players had held all four majors at once outside of the calendar year, you might have a point. The fact Novak stands alone in the achievement says it all in my view.

I am all for tradition, tradition that is worth keeping and has meaning, but not tradition for tradition's sake. For Novak and Martina's sake, I would kick that meaningless 'Grand Slam' tradition out of the stadium.

That said, I am happy to agree to disagree as in these matters there is no other way.

[gzhpcu]

Here more to the debate....

[arturohernandez]

So back to Roger and RG which is something we can talk about it and get some traction. I get the sense that he might have a chance if Nadal is not playing well.

Even if he loses in the second round, does it really hurt his career.

Not really. What is the deepest run at RG by a close to 37 year old player?

My guess is not more than third round.

He could lose the second week and still have one more record to his tally.

Maybe he just wants to play at RG one more time win or lose.

This might be his last chance.

Do you think Lendl might have done the same when he was young and could still win it?

[don_budge]

So back to Roger and RG which is something we can talk about it and get some traction. I get the sense that he might have a chance if Nadal is not playing well.

Approximately eight weeks to go before the opening bell at Roland Garros. None of the big four operational at this point other than Federer. Djokovic on his way back...at least on paper. I wonder what is going on in Roger's mind. He might as well play at this point. He needs match play to stay sharp for Wimbledon. More and more it looks as if it is tilting that he will play.

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/925664/Roger-Federer-World-No-1-French-Open-Roland-Garros

[gzhpcu]

Roger, in an interview with the Swiss tabloid, Blick, said he will decide if to play on clay after Miami...

[stotty]

Roger, in an interview with the Swiss tabloid, Blick, said he will decide if to play on clay after Miami...

It would be a risk. Wimbledon is in the bag if he stays healthy while the French Open would a terrible grind and not winnable if Nadal were in anything like the form he was in last year, probably his finest French Open out of the 10.

It's tempting, and I can understand him delaying his decision while keeping half an eye on Nadal's health, but Nadal wouldn't be his only obstacle on that surface. Numerous others would be difficult to beat on clay. If I were Roger, I would give it a miss.

[stroke]

It would be a risk. Wimbledon is in the bag if he stays healthy while the French Open would a terrible grind and not winnable if Nadal were in anything like the form he was in last year, probably his finest French Open out of the 10.

It's tempting, and I can understand him delaying his decision while keeping half an eye on Nadal's health, but Nadal wouldn't be his only obstacle on that surface. Numerous others would be difficult to beat on clay. If I were Roger, I would give it a miss.

Thats a question I never would have thought we would have to ponder, "out of the 10"

[stotty]

Thats a question I never would have thought we would have to ponder, "out of the 10"

Yes, mindboggling. The greatest single achievement in tennis ever.

[don_budge]

The latest from Roger on the subject but don't put too much stock in this. It is from CNN...aka "FAKE NEWS".

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/15/tennis/roger-federer-tennis-clay-season/index.html

[stroke]

Fed is almost as good at interviews as he is at tennis

[don_budge]

It's official...we have seen the last of Roger Federer at the French Open. Culmination point.

[klacr]

Smart move by Roger. No need to play on a surface that is more grueling and physically taxing. Get that body prepped for the grass courts.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

He has no points to defend until the grass season. If Rafa does not do well on sand, Roger could overtake him without playing.

[John Yandell]

To me who cares whether Roger is number one. I just want him to keep playing uninjured!