Monday, April 27, 2009

Quote For The Day

"I don't necessarily need to get to No. 1; I just need to win the French Open. That's what my goal is. For me, it doesn't matter if I'm 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 or 10 in the world. For me, it's either No. 1 or somewhere else. Especially for me, who has been No. 1 for so long and won so many titles. If you're not No. 1 then it's about winning titles and getting back No. 1. That's the position I'm in now."--Roger Federer

17 comments:

Beth said...

Hmmmm....sounds like a kind of contradictory statement....

Helen W said...

Ya think?

Isn't this the same person who whinges if he is introduced as "World No 2"?

Anyway, it is all very reminiscent of his pressers last year leading into the FO, before he was waxed by Rafa.

tangerine said...

Roger contradicted himself there. And pe can never pass up an opportunity to pat himself on the back and brag about his titles eh?

Hubris, thy name is Federer.

Pamela said...

I had to go back and read the comment again. I read it twice and came to the same conclusion that it was not rooted in arrogance.

Federer has achieved phenomenal things on tour. Records and titles that are not likely to be duplicated for many many years, if ever. So, I can definitely understand him saying when you've been #1 as long as he has, it's #1 or somewhere else. It doesn't and shouldn't matter to him unless he gets that spot back.

He seems to have a plan which makes sense in the latter stages of his career - win slams. That's it. The others are nice, but he's not training and playing for titles or even ranking at this point. He wants Roland Garros, bottom line. Hopefully, Rafa prevents that from happening this year again.

Just my opinion, of course.

Craig Hickman said...

If winning Roland Garros is the goal, which I believe it is, he's going about it in a counter-intuitive way. Of course, just when you think someone is washed up, they do the seemingly un-do-able.

But this year, anyway, Rafa isn't Raja's only barrier to a Roland Garros title.

It will remain difficult to defeat Raja in a Slam -- he's been in four consecutive Slam finals after all -- but to use Olympic scoring jargon, the level of difficulty is decreased as the weeks go by. Raja can't keep relying on his stature in the game to win those early-round Slam matches that he really ought to be losing.

I'm already looking forward to the draw.

Karen said...

Stranger things have happened people. I am glad that finally Roger is now saying what I have been saying all along. Mentally he has checked himself out of the best of 3 Masters Series events. They are now like warm up tournaments to him, as they should be. Roger is not 19 or 20 or even 22 years old anymore. He is now 27 going on 40. He has a wife and a child on the way. At some point he had to have that talk with Venus/Serena. What does it matter that you have won the same tournaments over and over and over again. What matters at the end of the day is this: how many majors did you win? That is why to me, Venus and Serena no matter how much they are criticised step it up for the majors, because that is how your career is defined. Recently, I attended the Legends tournament in my neck of the woods and when these players are being introduced, some of their careers is distinctly unimpressive, when compared to some others. In yesteday's final match, Courier was lauded for all his titles, including his majors etc. Poor Jimmy Arias - 5 singles titles and got his highest ranking of No. 5 in the world. I am not sure how people here can say that Roger is being delusional about winning the FO. If that is the case, then are you guys saying that there is no one in the ATP who can beat Nadal at the FO. Come on now. I doubt if there is no belief system in the ATP, or is there?

Adrian said...

I understand what Roger is saying even though it was a bit muddled.

That's a great point Karen. I hadn't though of Roger before as someone like Serena or Venus mainly focusing on the slams. In fact, it's hard to even picture it because he was so dominant.

Karen said...

Adrian, I think Venus and Serena have been focusing on the majors for quite some time now. They may turn up for some tournments that are dear to them like the Sony Ericsson in Miami, but all in all, it is all about the majors for them, especially at this point in their careers.

A said...

Well, except insofar as winning Masters tournaments is part and parcel of getting back to No. 1, right? And the more Roger demystifies himself at Masters events, the more beatable he becomes?

Serena and Venus seem different to me because they have fewer consistent peers.

I just think Roger's in a muddle.

Beth said...

I think that Roland Garros will only be more difficult for Roger to win this year, though certainly I cannot imagine him being out of that tournament anytime before the Q's (but who knows). I see Djokovic as a serious contender and, yes, maybe Andy Murray....I think each year that Roger misses the FO win, it will get increasingly more difficult for him to reach this goal because the field of potential contenders is growing. Yet, you have Agassi and his FO win at the age of 29. However, Roger's life is about to change dramatically with the birth of his baby. No one can anticipate how much that will impact his tennis. I hope it only enhances his desire to win more majors. He has said it has been a dream of his to have his child see him play tennis and win titles. I hope this is what happens for him.

Graf_sampras said...

1) Roger naturally relies on his reputation as far as players are concerned...but the problem will always be the same: IF rafael, or novak, or Murray play WELL and do their expected parts and are uninjured - he is facing the prospect quite different from the years before of reaching the SEMIS only or finals.

novak and murray (no need to mention rafa) are NOT davydenko , or blake, or roddick, or ljubicic or ferrer - in relation to roger federer across the net. these are players who came into the scene INTENT on standing up to roger as the others have not.

that is a problem for him.

2) roger says he is concentrating on "movement" -- but has HIS MOVEMENT NOT been considered the BEST for years and years? and it it WITH that movement that he has been defeated by these mentioned players? what's the difference really going to be? he is going to sprint faster? run longer?...

i've often said over the years, even before roger was the number one - that the tournament that had grown or "arrived" with the crop of players led by roger was INFERIOR in quality....it has been proven by the likes of ferrer, robredo, soderling, blake, roddick, ljubicic, outside of the factors of the many injuries, inconsistencies, choke scenes etc...

it was quite clear that THAT generation was NOT going to pose a serious or even consistent challenge to roger federer..fairly ensuring a dominance such as we had seen..AND IT WOULD TAKE THE NEXT crop of players, if they were any good to show some serious challenge.

rafael's emergence actually surprised me - coming as EARLY as it did in HIS career.

but taht was simply the point i always made...rafael LED the NEXT generation -- to pose a serious challenge to roger IN THE MIDDLE of his dominance....

and IF that younger group matured as swiftly as they have (murray, novak and nadal)

THAT is the kind of competition roger should HAVE been presented by HIS own generation which THEY failed to do as a general rule .

Graf_sampras said...

another problem for roger is:

IF he fails in the ROME or MADRID or fails to DEFEND ESTORIL if he plays, or fails in Hamburg and comes to FO without a title -- he is as far as MORE players are concerned FINISHED...and will be seen as just another RIVAL AMONG THEM to try to "get a set from rafael" (regardless of what rafael fares with).

LAST year -0r a month ro so before the AO 2008 -- i said:

"should roger fail in the AO -- it will SET the tone for his AO hardcourt season...."

he fell in indian wells, miami, dubai


"should roger fail in the FO it shall set the tone for his wimbledon".......

he fell in wimbledon in addition..


i was wrong in that he won the USO but everyone knows he won it in an identical fashion to USO 2007-- with consecutive first time finalists who literally choked BIG TIME that even long-time writers of new york times etc....couldn't avoid pointing out.

people have to remember that while nadal continued his dominance over roger..and murray had IMPROVED SINCE his USO defeat last year

the "third rail" that could have posed a SERIOUS obstacle EVEN LAST YEAR to roger federer -- novak got burned out .

imagine if the "trio" of the next generation players playing RIGHT NOW -- was "complete?"

you'd have the recipe for total disaster for roger federer even as EARLY as USO 2008. if EITHER murray or novak had arrived at or maintained their "hot streaks", respectively.

and we MIGHT not even have been talking about Roger as "finalist" in the AO THIS year alone.

but giving respect to him --

he is , imo, NOT quite done yet. he has something to also say about proceedings even if not EVERYTHING is "in roger's racquet" anymore, as much as HE might like to think.

Graf_sampras said...

and NO -- he is NOT old.

rafael simply not only caught up with him in EVERYTHING else outside of FO -- but murray did what he needed to do to make his career better: he trained, he got serious, etc...novak is SLOWLY emerging from the expected and understandable "funk" after an initial Splash and ISN"T going away for many more years . because roger is NO LONGER his "only concern"...but keeping his rank or regaining it if he loses it against OTHER contenders apart from roger and HAS THE NUMBER ONE in HIS sights as well.

THEY have TIME

roger has not.

but to call him "old?"

of course not. if rafael or murray or novak did not emerge as they have against roger --

RIGHT NOW we would be talking about Roger "aiming for his SECOND GRAND SLAM".......and NO ONE would mentioning him as OLD.


OLD in tennis is like SAMPRAS was old and broken down in 2001...THAT"s old and beaten up.

old is like AGASSI unable to run and move properly and "I WILL NOT do certain things anymore, like stretching out for a shot or bending"......in USO 2004, 2005 when his last BIG efforts to get the last juices out of his body were basically done after 2002.

same as with his rival sampras.

THAT"s old.

not this 27 going on 28.

let's be clear about that. because that can't be used as an excuse the way it was for sampras or agassi in 2000 - 2002.

oddman said...

Pamela, I reread that a few times myself. The man talks a convoluted game, is he coy or what?

My own take is did he have to say that bit 'especially for me, who has been No. 1 for so long and won so many titles'? Why remind us all? Oh, I forgot.

Mulan said...

still,
roger has to face Andy or Novak before reaching the final, which is not going to be easy...

they have improved in clay it seems..

Graf_sampras said...

some things roger said are TRUE and we shouldn't really diss him for that:

HE IS the holder of 13 majors -- and he has the right to insert that in his comments, whatever the motivation is for him such as to "remind" people and opponents...

he HAS been world number one of such dominance and experience - that is the reason rafael and others had to FIGHT for their slots to take it away from roger...

and he HAS the ability to play the best tennis out there and build on it , if he can, towards the things he says he wants to do : winning the FO, regaining number one. etc

MMT said...

This is not a rhetorical question: can someone explain what elements of what he said are contradictory?