Hopefully Roger will not have to trade one for the other and will get away with both. But though he keeps saying that Wimbledon is more important to him that RG, which tournment do you think Fed would choose if he had to pick one considering that RG 07 has a special tag as it would complete the 4 slams on the trot? On the other hand having 5 Wimbledons in a row would put him equal to Borg there.

Difficult question but though he might admit otherwise for now, I tend to think that for once RG 07 has more glory than Wimbledon for his record book.


Discuss.....

If (and I do mean if, since I don't want to jinx it :) ) he manages to win RG07, I doubt anyone will have a chance at Wimbledon against him. He's by far the best grass court player out there and he wouldn't have any pressure at all.

Winning at Wimbledon doesn't require a huge fitness level and level of determination compared to other slams. Honestly, at Wimbledon I don't believe there's a player who can really hurt him. Only an enormous heatwave that would slow down the court dramatically could harm him.

On the other hand, if he weren't to win at RG this year, the pressure would be on him to equal Borg. That added pressure could hinder him. Still, the only one who can beat Fed at SW19 is Fed.

As an afterthought: if he indeed were able to win both RG and Wimbledon this year (and only succeeding in the former would be enough to make my year), the pressure at the US Open would of course be immense.

If Roger were to win the French, then it would be interesting to see if he had a dip in form afterwards in the supsequent euphoria.

I'm not sure how much he really values all four on the trot, I think he really has his eye on the big prize, a calender grand-slam.

I agree that bar injury, Wimbledon should be his. This is where is talent is best expressed and only a Gasquet on song could trouble him (I know Gasquet got his lesson last year but he was returning from injury and started the match beaten).

I still d like to know which one he'd -honestly- choose if he had to pick one of the 2. I say "honestly" as I feel he might not necessarily tell us the truth story when he says Wimby is his first priority.

It's a bit of a silly question, isn't it? How do you gauge something like that, anyway. It's not as though someone is going to come up to Fed and see "I can grant you one Grand Slam title, which one do you want most?"

I don't have trouble believing him that Wimbledon is more important to him in his heart. On the other hand, I would imagine he is currently working harder towards being able to get the French. :shrug:

PS Even Tim Henman is more likely than Gasquet to beat Fed at Wimbledon.

Thanks for spending your time answering my stupid question! :D

I would certainly believe him when he says Wimby is closer to his heart on normal circumstances but there is a special stake in winning RG this year.

Reg Tim I am not sure, he got one game less than Gasquet last year at SW19 though he was playing on home soil.

Must say Tenez, it's difficult to see how Gasquet was still coming back from injury by the time of Wimbledon last year.

he was injured about 2-3 month before Roland Garros, then came back to the tour about a month before the tournament started and was frankly pants. He even entered the tournament the week before the French Open as a qualifier in a desperate attempt to get wins under his belt before his home major but went out in the first round proper.

He then swept all before him in Nottingham, looking in fine fettle before having his ass handed to him on a plate by Fed at Wimby.

Talented though he is, I think there a other players who have a better chance of beating Fed at SW19 this year. slim to none, but still a chance.

If Ancic can get into the championships fully fit, then he would be top of the pops for me. Last year he was clearly not fully fit and didn't play again until after the US Open.

Baghdatis has the all-court game that could cause problems if he learn, and fast, on grass.

The other is Murray, if he can harness the crowd and meet Fed on one of his better days.

All these have the game to maybe, just maybe, upset Fed at Wimbledon but I think thay would all need to rely on Roger not playing at his best. If he brings his A-game with him, there's simply no discussion as to the result.

Ancic didn't strike me as injured in the least at Wimbledon (or Roland Garros.) Federer was superb in that match and Ancic did nothing wrong except turn up. The reason he missed the US Open was because he damaged ligaments in his leg while jet skiing in July. He hasn't been the same since that accident I agree.

When returning from injury, one needs to get some winning under the belt. Gasquet started the match in the wrong frame of mind (that is where Gasquet has to work most), plus he faced an imperial Fed. When Fed is himself on song, then he becomes a different animal. Roddick, Blake, Hewitt know what it is.

I can't see Ancic, Roddick winning for sure. Their best is not good enough. The advantage that the youngsters have over those guys is that we don't know what their best is yet.

As I'm not a mind reader,I can only guess that it would mean more to Fed and the history books if he could manage to capture the elusive RG title..I wouldn't put it beyond the bounds of possibility for him to win Wimby afterwards as grass seems to be where he's particularly unbeatable. ;)

Agree - silly question ;)2

I think Wimbledon - if he won RG and lost at Wimbledon that would leave an incredibly disappointing after taste for him, as well as an uncomfortable indication that someone else had stepped up on to his plate.

If he loses RG and wins Wimbledon it will not be a huge surprise, he has matched Borg's 5 in a row and has again won the tournament that he values the most.

If he gets RG, I do think that he will be incredibly difficult to beat at Wimbledon (remember how he picked himself up at Halle in 2006 and his aura would be even worse for his opponents).

If he were to get both, I think that the pressure at the US Open would, funnily enough, not be as bad as it might otherwise be (if he were simply going for 4 in-a-row) because he would already be the holder of all 4 on different surfaces (easily the equal of Laver's achievement IMHO).

In point of fact, I do not expect him to get RG this year - I think if he gets it once in his career that would be amazing.

:doh: forgot about the skiing acident.

Watching too much tennis is definitely bad for you :confused:

Of course deep down inside it's RG he wants the most, BUT; Roger is aware of the fact he will get only one shot to win 5 consecutive Wimbledon titels.
So i reckon he's willing to wait another year (or 2) to win RG.

I would personally say RG as then he has proved himself at all 4 slams. To be honest I think he would still likely win Wimbers anyway,can not see anyone challenging him there.

There is a quote from Roger somewhere (anyone know the source?), where he says that even if he had 11 Wimbledons, he wouldn't swap one of them for a French Open title.. oh, hold on.. I.m thinking that he said that if he had 10 Wimbledons and had to choose between either an eleventh Wimbledon or a first French Open, then he'd go for the Wimbledon! Or something along those lines!! :D

So on that basis, IF (and a big 'if') he had to choose one then I'd say Wimbledon.. and I'd rather he won Wimbledon too. Why? Well, I'd like him to equal Borg's record.. and also I prefer Wimbledon to RG.

But of course to equal Borg's achievement of a back to back RG/ SW19 would be sensational!!

That's cause Gasquet had already warmed up Fed ... ;)

OK, I'll admit I was being cheeky. I was trying to say I don't see Gasquet having any chance at all :)

Also one less game hardly proves anything does it roflmao

True. Tim *did* get served a bagel though, to be fair. :)

Bagel, break stick, potatoe, pot-ar-to :P

This is what I would have said but what are the chances for Fed to hold the 3 slams again with a chance to win the 4th? slim.

As winning 5 Wimbledons is also very special too.

Difficult - and admitedly silly - question!

I remember that quote from him, but isn't that a way to ease off the pressure from winning in Paris? I really doubt he would not swap an 11th WImby against a sole FO.

No but one less game proves even less. ;)

To get a change to win the 4th would be great but that's off topic..

Not only it's hard to judge what Roger prefers but what about the fans? Which one would you choose, Tenez?
A loss at Wimbledon would hurt me -as a fan- more than a loss at RG. Even though a win at RG would be in terms of history more valuable.

I think Fed would probably love to win the French, but not at the expense of Wimbledon. Like Petalp said, there are quotes around where Federer says he would always choose Wimbledon over the French.

In terms of how we look at it - if he didn't win the French it owuldn't be the biggest surprise in the world. If he didn't win Wimbledon, it'd be a huge shock. I wonder if that's how he sees it to some extent too.....

Oi, dinky jo, I said the same thing.

I would rather him win Wimbledon than RG because if he won RG but not Wimbledon it would seem all hollow and the wrong way around.

Also, you have a fresh chance of a calender GS or an "all four at the same time" every year. You only get a chance of 5 Wimbys in a row every 5 years. If he guffs this Wimbledon, I can't see him winning from 2008-2012, no way. Someone else is bound to step up and start beating a 30-yr old Federer by 2011.

ok, you kinda said the same thing......but much more eloquently than I ever could...... :wub:

Being in the position of having already 3 in the bag is going to be extremely rare. I know that this is his 2 time he got in that position but I don't think there will be many others.

Also...Borg won 5 in a row, Sampras won 7 so even if he wins Wimbledon he will only tie a former great, If he wins RG this year and hold the 4 slams at once, he will simply do something Neither Borg or Sampras have and even Laver did not have a slam with 4 different surfaces.

However...having said that and from I gathered here, it is fair to conclude that Wimbledon would still be his favoured slam this year.

Yeah Id agree winning RG would be the far greater achievement and would put him
arguably ahead of Laver and Borg all at 11 on the all time list of Slams .
But whether he does it or not, he'll be highly motivated to win Wimbledon anyway ... a French/Wimbledon double and/or equalling Borgs record would be the icing on the cake . :)

Agreed Big Al. The thing is if he misses RG this year and never does the GS in his career, I am sure this will be his biggest regret by a long way. I certainly don't believe that he would not swap his 9th Wimby for a single RG. That is said clearly to ease the pressure on the French.

He must have been hugely disappointed last year, and not often a player gets a second chance at it ! But that might just be the extra motivation . A bit like Goran winning his Wimbledon final , it seemed like destiny.
And no offence to Nadal, but couldnt he just miss the French this year? ;)

I am sure he can win it with the best of Nadal in the draw. He just needs a cool day to lower the bounce and keep his mind cool.

And he's a better player this year while Nadal isnt too impressive. He'll never get a better chance than this . The clay season is going to be very interesting ! :)

I wouldn't even worry about it if he doesn't manage to win the French this year. You always need a little bit of luck to win a Grand Slam tournament. It took quite a few Clay icons years to win it. With the FO, people seem to win it either early in their career or late.

*dances around singing 'Go Fed, Go Fed'

I would love to see Fed do the GS this year, or next year or any year as long as he does it once.

I think personally, he would rather win Wimbers over RG if he had to lose at one - but losing isnt really in his vocabulary so lets just see how he does...

If I were cynical about Fed's comments concerning his preference of Wimbledon over RG, I would say he knows Wimbledon-supporters are much more chauvinistic about their tournament's status than FO-supporters. (prepares to face wrath of all English forum members...)

I do have a feeling holding all four titles at once would mean everything to Fed. Winning the French would relieve him of so much pressure.

Thought I'd reply to this since it'll likely be the one and only time I ever agree with Tenez! If I was Fed (perish the thought ;) ), I'd want to win the RG at least once. I'd definitely choose the French over one Wimbledon - Borg's 5 in a row record is a great one, but not quite up there with winning Slams on all 4 different surfaces.

I don't think the 'sacrifice' element will ever come into it though. If he does win at RG this year I'd still expect him to win Wimbledon - he'd be on a roll and his opponents would be in even more awe of him. He might choke at the US Open, under the pressure of getting the calendar Slam, but I still think he'd settle for that as long as he could win at least one French.

hmmm... could be that I guess. I never really thought that my own bias towards the home slam means I view it as the one they all want to win.

But they do dont they? ;)

Don't worry, Pebs. It's true most players want to win Wimbledon the most, however, once someone has won Wimbledon (4 times) the focus will most likely shift to the difficult combination of RG AND Wimbledon.

Let's face it: even you probably want him to win RG this year for the first time more than you want him to win Wimbledon for the fifth time.

That's a fair point - if he gets his 11th at RG and holds all 4 at once he's really got nothing left to prove to anyone - except probably himself. After that it becomes a question of how many can he get - it might even improve his play for a while.

I would then expect him to clean up at Wimbledon and the US Open and I don't think he would face anything like the pressure at either event as he will at RG this year (and did at RG and Wimbledon last year and Wimbledon in 2005). He seems to want to go down as the best if he can, and he must know that his place in Tennis History will be a little tarnished if he never gets RG even if he does get more than Sampras' 14.

thats very true hun, I would love for him to win the French.