What do you all reckon, folks?

I think he will either play the best tennis of his life and do the Grand Slam; but being more realistic and what I've voted for he will have a shock loss in the semis say of the AO and then go into RG with less pressure on himself play freely including against (whoever he plays in the final) and win it having not spent too much emotional energy on the court so far in 2007. He will then of course pending injury win Wimbledon and perhaps be exhausted from doing the notorious double and not do as well as hoped at the USO. I've voted for two slams inc RG. But seriously who knows what could happen. The same year this year could very well be repeated.

I also voted for 2 slams (inc Roland Garros), and interestingly, so has at least one other person. I go along with your analysis of him winning Roland Garros, then Wimbledon - but being fallible at Aus Open and US Open.

I agree with that . He'll win the French and Wimbledon , which will be an amazing achievement .
But it could well be a repeat of this year .. :)

A FO-W double next year would be tremendous but I'm not sure if he'll do it. I've gone for the safer option of 2 slams not including FO, most likely W and one of AO/USO.
Every slam win next year is going to be important.
If he wins AO, he'll be the first in the open era (I think) to twice win 3 slams in a row.
If he wins FO, it will give him the career GS.
If he wins Wimbledon, he'll equal Borg's record of 5 in a row.
If he wins USO, he'll be the first in the open era to win 4 USO in a row.

Yes its history in the making. I cant wait for the Australian . :)

i reckon 2 slams, probably ao and wimbers..

Good post. I agree wtih it in general, it's a good theory. :ok:

The safe option is that he will repeat this year's efforts and not get the Fo, but I just feel that this year something very different will happen, because I think that winning is even more important to Roger nwo he is in sight of that Sampras record so he will be more driven than before, He also knows that the competiion is hotting up a little and some new talents are coming to the fore like Baghi, Djoko and dare I say Murray (well he did beat Fed!) and he is going to be so focused, but what will mean most to him is the thing. And I think it will be winning the FO for that career slam, and I also think that he will be desperate to retain his Wimby crown because that really is his manor and pride will come into that, especailly if Nadal is in the way again. I think we forget hwo close Fed came at last year's Fo and we cant; write him off just becasue fo Nadal. I think Fed will get his number as he does with most of those who dare to beat him, and who knows if Nadal will not have injury anyway? He has certainly had more episodes of it than Federer has and the way his game is he is likely to be more injury prone than Fed. If Fed wins the Fo, there is no reason why he should be injured for Wimby, after all he got to the FO final thsi year and still won Wimby.

Well for some reason, I am going to say he will win the FO and Wimby, and one of the hard courts. Not sure why but I get a feeling he might not win the USO next year, becasue some young gun will get on a roll, maybe Baghi? And maybe the same could be said of the AO, strange things happen in that first slam of the year, and Nadal wasn't there last year. And I really do beleive he has a chance of the GS and I will out my bet on him when the odds come out as I did this year. The odds were not THAT great but he'd already got the Ao then and 7-1 with a fiver on it was a a better bet to follow through the Fo (as the Fo was the key one) than putting it on Nadal who was about evens and Fed wasn't much higher either.

I may of course chang emy mind, but I am really not sold on the idea of him winning none, one (without FO), two (without FO), FO only. I'm warmer to him winning two inc FO, but hotter on the other choices and I hope it is the GS as I woudl LOVE to see it done. :ok:

SW19, SB, Both excellent posts!!

Thinking about this, it's almost a case of trying to do "what if"s at each stage of the season. What if for some reason he does get knocked out of the AO? How will that impact him? Will it galvanise him and in a way free him up to take the French? If he takes the French, then will he be able to be as fantastic as he was from the word 'go' at SW19? If he were to take the first 3 slams :pray: then would the pressure at the USO be too much for him? Also, the young gusn could be a real threat by this time next year, and many of them are very good on the indoor hardcourts. They are possibly not strong enough on clay, and well, grass is grass, and the season is so short that it probably takes longer for them to get used to that!

Well.. I had wondered about the slam.. and SB, I generally don't bet (wouldn't know where to start!) but I would certainly put some money on that. I really do think that he is becoming better and better. His serve is now a real weapon; his backhand too. Oh, btw the stats re: serves in the USO final.. 1 double fault between the pair of them! Fed didn't double fault once, and barelly did at SW19 either.

Anyway, I'm digressing. The slam is a definite possibility. I had this strange notion that he might actually get another 3, maybe? I'd say especially so if he weren't to take the AO. That would take all of the pressure off him, and he'd take RG, SW19, and in a flourish, the USO. Of course slams are really hard to win, and yet he managed it at the AO earlier this year whilst not fully fit.
I just have to think that someone has to take 3 sets off him, and right now this seems a big 'ask'. I think that the only people to have done that in the last 2 years have been Safin at the AO, Nadal twice at RG, and Nalbandian at the Masters (he was just coming back from injury and nearly secured that!) So this is an exclusive club.

If he were to lose at the AO, then it would make things very interesting if it were Rafa in the final, and then Fed were to return the favour at RG!. If he were to win 3 then I'd prefer for it to be the latter 3..

And 2 slams? Well, that would be SW19 for sure (not a radical prediction I know!).. Wishful thinking would be RG, but maybe an SW19/ USO double again.

If it were just the one slam, then it would have to be SW19. But as you rightly pointed out, on form, it should (hopefully) be at least 2 slams.

So, I shall plump for a possible slam (how great would that be!) and if not the 4, then 3 again, but perhaps not the same as this year.

Thus endeth my meanderings.. :blush: I seemed to witter on at the beeb about Federer, so maybe I'm still in witter mode here.. :wacko:

I'd say they look like pretty accurate meanderings, petalp. There are so many 'what ifs'. I like seeing Federer win, but I can't imagine that he can keep up the pace of 3 slams a year for the next few years. I have a feeling that he will concentrate hard over the next couple of years on the FO, while he's young and can grind out some tough matches on the dirt. He will always be confident at Wimbledon, but it would be a huge feat to win the FO and SW19 back to back, so I reckon he may be vulnerable in the early rounds of Wimbledon if he has adjusted his game to win at Roland Garros. I know that the words Federer and vulnerable don't get mentioned together too often, but Sampras looked unbeatable on grass and got beaten a couple of times by decent grasscourt players (Krajicek and some nobody called Roger). Becker tried to play a different game for the FO and brought the same game back to Wimbledon, only to lose in the first round to, I think, Peter Doohan. I hope Federer does the slam, but I think he's smart enough to know that something will have to give if he ever wants to win RG, so he may set his sights on 2 GS wins a year for the next couple of years, hoping that one of them is the French.

A couple of random jottings:

Why does Federer need to do anything different at RG? He reached the final this year with ease, was one set up, and although he lost, he clearly has it in him to win with his current weapons.

Who are these "young guns"? There are some exciting younger players coming up but none strike me as likely to really put an indelible stamp on the sport within the next 12 months. Gasquet is the most gifted but he is susceptible to injury and unexpected losses and Federer has won their last 5 encounters (beating RG in Toronto despite making 42 unforced errors!) I'm not sure I buy into the Andy Murray hype and although Djokovic has his admirers, I'm too biased against anyone who bounces the ball 10 to 15 times before each serve to give him much credence! Federer's most dangerous adversaries will continue to be Nadal, Roddick and Safin (the latter the only one who I think has any chance if Roger plays well.)

I can't find any logical reason why Federer won't win another 3 or more slams next year. Can he lose at Wimbledon? He's dropped only 5 sets in 4 years so it doesn't look likely. He hasn't really looked vulnerable at the US Open either. So we're left to speculate that he'll trip up in Australia or RG or both.

Of course, if he were to become injured that would change matters. And logically, this will happen to him one day. I was musing what the key to his dominance is (and Sampras never enjoyed this level of domination even during his greatest streak) and I concluded that it is his ability to return serve. Sampras could lose matches when an opponent served his socks off. Federer seems to possess a supernatural ability to get even the fastest serves back (Roddick, with the world's fastest serve, only managed to get 7 past his racket in two and a half hours .... that's a breach of the Geneva Convention!). It gives himself far more chance to negate any break of service he might experience and it takes the pressure of his own serve. So until a "young gun" learns to dominate Federer on serve, it's hard to see him losing to anyone over five sets. So I'll stick with my prediction he'll win three while hoping ardently it will be four (just so I can say I saw it!)

Excellent post. You put all the what ifs very well there. :ok: I think we are going to have to follow step by step, and as you say see how winning OR losing the AO will affect other things, and then revise our predictions. A lot can happen between now and January, and also over the next year too, in terms of injury, fitness, mental issues, etc for Fed which of course makes these things so tricky to predict. And of course he does not operate in a vacuum (although I guess it can often seem like it as he is so damned good!) and the competition can change for the better, as in improvements in game for the up and coming stars, or players just finding a purple patch of form. The competition can also change for the worse through injury and withdrawals and bad patches for his main rivals.

When you look at hsi main rivals, how much real rivalry and danger is there? You give a very good analysis of those who have taken a certain number of sets off of him, and yes it is a big ask. Of those who have done it though, it still does not seem much of a threat does it? IMO the biggest threat (for hard anyway) is Safin, as he has all the weapons needed to beat Roger. However, the problem is he can rarely find them and he is a deadly threat when he can, but his cahnce sof findign them are probably onyl 10% or something. Safin has to hti a rare purple patch to do this and face Fed in the latter stages. I woudl say that Safin;s best chance would be if he met Roger in the early rounds and caugh thim unawares, but I think Fed is just too aware. Nalby - well Fed was not 100%, and given Nalby's recent shocking form he would seriously have to get his ass in gear to have a chance against Roger next year. And generally, if they are both fit Roger is by far the better player of the two. So i dont; see Nalby as a threat unless disaster hits Fed with injury. In fact I am seriously wondering if Nalby's going to go down the tubes next year. I just dont; see him as beign a threat now and I never really did. Nadal of course is a more consitent threat than Safin, but wth the exception of clay I don't see him as such a dangeorus and unpredictable one. But this will be perhaps the most fascinating threat to watch as it unravels. Will Fed get Nadal's number? I think he is working on it as top priority right now and will get there soon. But of course Nadal isn't static, and wil he mprove his game so much that he becomes a threat on all surfaces? Or will he burn out and injure, as he certainly has the potential to in comparison with Fed whose game style will giv ehim more longevity and less periods of injury. I have to say that Rafa has dissappointed on hard courts this year, through injury prior to the AOand then an early exit at the USO and a poor Summer harcourt season overall - and most thought he'd be a major threat there. I wonder if the FO anf Wimby wore him out a bit? Seems like wimby was two steps forward and the USo 3 steps back to me.

Roddick has been mentioned, but despite his great AO perfromance, which was probably his best fight against an on form Fed to date, he just could not keep the level up, and when it cam eot the crunch, Fed stepped and snatched it. I cant; see Roddick getting much better. I think he plays his game style about as well as he can play it, and Fed just throws it back at him, bath tub and all! :D His comments that fed was a level above everyoen else after his USO loss to him are very honest and real I think, but they also show that roddick is perhaps resigned to his place as 2nd to Fed and knows no way to get the better of him, adn that is telling.

With the young guns, Fed seems to get revenge on those who have beaten him quite quickly. Gasquet has the flair, but as yet not the consitency and he has a lot of injuries and dips in form. Shame really. Berdych seems to pose no threat at all. Djokovic wil be an interestign prospect, as I think he has the makigns to be a contender for slams, he certainyl has the heart and fire, and a real tough game but I don't think he is ready yet. Poeple laugh when Murray is mentioned, but they shoudlnt; as he doe shave the mentality to beat Fed, and that is something many dont; have even when handed the chance. Murray's game is developing and he is different to a lot of young players in terms of style and tactical ability, so presents a mor einterestign challenge. He now has a good coach and he wants to suceed, and it may tale a few years but watch this space for a real slam contender I say. And Baghi - well look what he is capabel of and what he has achieved so far and then then say he is no threat and I'd say you were wrong. I think he is the most dangerous up and coming player for Federer right now, if a little unpredictable, and he has the game to win 2 of the four slams, and wasnt; bad on grass either was he?

Then of course we have those who are a threat on a particular surface. I can only really come up with Ancic for grass, but even with hsi big serve and volley game, and his great perfromance against Fed at Wimby, he still lost in (I think?) straight sets. And two years in a row now Blake has shown excellent form at the USO, but was no match for Federer, being undone in 4.

Sorry if i miss anyone of note, these are just the ramblign of mad woman who knows sod all about tennis! roflmao

I'm backing Fed for the Grand slam.

Seriously, if he stays fit, he will still be nigh-on unstoppable at the AO, Wimby and USO.

And the only guy who can stop him at RG is Nadal, but I think his limited style of play might well begin to catch up with him, if not against Fed then against somebody else.

I back the slam!

I hope so - would love to see a slam in my lifetime. I just struggle with the idea that every player there has ever been before makes mistakes at random intervals, whereas Federer maintains his level (for the most part) for 3 years straight. His losses have only been against young guys playing off their nuts or the real pretenders to his throne, which is unbelievable. Evidence would suggest that he can keep this up, but I would question him being human if he managed it for much longer.
I was reading a post about Tiger Woods vs Roger Federer - the similarities and who is better etc etc. I reckon Tiger's incredible, but if he has an off day, he generally has three other days in which to make up for his mistakes. With Federer, one off day should mean getting dumped out of a tournament, but he never seems to have them. He's gotta get a cold some time.....

I've argued about Tiger vs. Roger on the BBC in roger's corner under my 'loveyouems' username - No comparison for me, in fact if Fed was American I reckon there would be no debate

That was you roflmao

I might've guessed :rolleyes:

re: the young guns. I think they will be more of a threat next year. There fitness is getting better and they are improving all the time. I don't think Murray has just had a honey moon period I think he is starting to play consistently and fulfill his true potenital. Gasquet seems to be on his way back up, Djokovic will be lethal as he becomes more fit consistent and overcomes injury and Monfils will be a threat on clay if healthy; if not all surfaces I should imagine. Baghdatis has only just begun, I hope he can stay injury free too. Roddick will perhaps be better than these on the faster surfaces but overall I think Fed's main compeition will come from the young guns from now on. Hewitt and Safin don't seem to be able to get it together. And since when did Hewitt prove a thread to Fed anyway.

It is players like Murray, Gasquet and Nadal in the FO semi 05 that spring the surprises on Fed. It is they he will ahve to look out for as they seem to be improvig and getting better results. I thin by the end of next year without a doubt all the ones I've mentioned should be in the top 20 (injury permitting).

I say, he'll win the AO, beating Nadal in the final, then the French, again beating Nadal in the final for his fifth straight GS title. He'll then have his grass court winning streak snapped, when he fails to defend his title at Halle, but will go on to win Wimbledon with ease. Then he'll get tripped up by one of the youngsters at the US Open, denying him the calendar-year slam.

(But really, who knows? :shrug: We can only guess.)

Fed is improving too

Well I've stuck my head out for the Grand Slam next year tho' I'm not putting any money on it! Perhaps it's just wishful thinking but I'm not covinced the "young guns" have proved themselves yet. I feel Gasquet is probably the best of them because I think he is a genuine shotmaker, Murray's fitness is still questionable and Djokovic has been disappointing. Baggy could be a real threat at Slam level - he has shown he can rise to the big occasion. I have a hunch Nadal might not have the same phenomenal year next year. Given the right draws and perhaps more than a fair share of good luck the Grand Slam MIGHT be possible.

Is there any real reason for thinking Nadal will make the AO final next year? He is proving consistantly vulnerable to a certainly style of player (Berdych, Blake, Youzhny) and I'm sure others will start fancying their chances where before they would have given up before the match had begun.

Can anyone make a case for why Djokovic is being talk up as a major threat next year? He had a decent run at the FO I guess, but I haven't seen anything too convincing from him (having said that, he'll be playing Federer in the Davis Cupat the weekend so perhaps he'll show us then what he's made of!)

Well I can't really convince anyone, i just think he has shown a powerful combination of talent, power and toughness this year. i think he woudl have progressed deeper into the draw at wimby had he not met Ancic when he did. Ancic was effectively number 2 seed for grass IMO.

SuperBrat, I'm not doubting you are right - I just wasn't that impressed when I saw him play (only a couple of times) so I hoped you could fill me in!

Now you mention it, I think Ancic is a player who could potentially step up a level (I'm not expecting him to, but if he did, it wouldn't shatter my world view. If Monfils suddenly ruled the world, I'd be truly shocked.)

Sorry i cant; say much more, I was just impressed and go ta very postive vibe from him. Mr Invisible might be able to comment further, I know he is quite a follower of Djoko and is more technically knowledgable than me.

Yes it is a shame about Ancic, he is a player I think deserves to step up to the top few, we need a serve volleyer in there. I agree on Monfils. Not knocking the lad, but he hasnt; filled me with confidence although he had a good FO. I would be truly shocked if he made the top 5 really.

I think he'll win 4 slams :D [I hope]

He has the potential to win every slam and I :pray: that he will

Hey Nick,

Novak Djokovic seems to me to be the pick of the younger players in terms of consistently finding his best form in the big games.

Very early on this year he had a poor AO, but then had an excellent Davis Cup match against GB on the fast carpets in Glasgow, where he pretty much single-handedly won the whole thing for his country.

He then had an excellent French Open, reaching the quarter finals, and whilst he may not have got much further than he did, one of the reasons why he got knocked out was either injury or fatigue (not sure which one). He beat Gonzo in 5 sets, Tommy Haas in straight sets, Monfils in straight sets too, before going out to Rafa.

He then also had a very creditable Wimbledon, and only went out of the tournament in the last 16 in an epic 5 setter against Ancic, which was one of my matches of the tournament. Oh, yes, there was some very dodgy commentary about it being Croatia vs Serbia and Montenegro.. Before being knocked out he had beaten Tommy Robredo in straight sets and Mikhail Youzhny in 4 (the latter probably now considered a very decent win!)

He also had a few good ATP tournaments after that, winning one tournament (on clay I think) and making the final of another before having to retire with breathing problems.

THe USO was uncharacteristically poor by his standards. I had been thinking along the same lines as SB about this, that I would have put him down as getting to the last 8 or more in this one. For once, his consistency wasn't there..

So, he has had a lot of fine results this year, and many of them have happened in the slams. This makes me think that he is a big match player, and therefore why I have high hopes for him. He has a really solid all-round game, with excellent groundstrokes. From what I remember, his serve is more than adequate and he could volley with good soft hands. He also has a good temperament, and is generally a very likeable person.

Hope that this helps to explain why a few people tip him for the top.. :)

Thanks for explaining that. I tmust be old age, but as soon as a slam is over I can never remember stuff like that, unles sof course I go tto see the match which is why I recall Ancic. I di dsee him play Nadal though and it was good stuff, did he injure himself though? yes ha dhim down to get to the semis of the USo me! Major dissappointment there, but I think that Hewitt is a master of schooling youngsters really and proabably undid him a bit and taught him a lesson as Lleyton often does.

Agreed SB! Novak is certainly one that I think will upset a few of the more established players again in the coming year.. :ok:

I usually have to be paying a lot of attention to what's going on to remember matches. some of these took a bit of thinking about :blink: even had to look up one or two, and then it was 'ah yes, I remember now!'/// :D

Thank F for that, I was begining to feel very inferior! roflmao

I agree with a lot of the sentiments here about the new talent that might be able to challenge Fed, but we must get things into perspective.

Since his dominance started, the only problem to cause Fed definite problems every match has been Rafa Nadal, because of the extraordinary amount of topspin he can generate, the fact he can 'handcuff' Fed by going into his backhand off his forehand, and because of his extraordinary speed. No-one else on tour has those ingredients in their game, and gradually I think Fed is working Rafa out, and on a Hard court or Grass Fed is clear favourite to win.

When guys like Gasquet, Murray and Safin have beaten Fed, they have done so having played extraordinary matches in which fed has not been on top form. Because Fed is by far the best attacking player in the game, no one will beat him at that game consistently and as they don't have a 'way' of playing him like Rafa, he beats them. I don't see that changing.

A lot of the problem is in Federers head , he's 6-2 down . If he can beat Nadal a few times on hard courts where he should be the favourite, that will give him a lot more confidence to beat him on clay. You can sense this is already happenning with his win at Wimbledon . Theres lots of ifs and buts , but the biggest one concerns Nadal ..if he can win the AO it might be a huge psychological blow . I dont really see anyone else troubling Federer in the short term..

correction - the only PLAYER to cause Fed definite problems! roflmao

Hmmm, good question!

Would be nice to see Fed get RG next year for the career slam - but it would be even better if he managed the calender one!

Still, most people think he could do it - wouldn't it be odd if he does get RG but misses out on Wimby and the USO!

My heart backs the slam and I respect and his talent Federer so much I think he will do it injury permitting.

The AO - If he trips up here it falls, if he is fit for it he is the favourite. Nadal will be the main competitor on this slow hardcourt but really in 2005 the year Nadal won FO, he lost to Hewitt on Rebound Ace. I think Federer is my favourite for this with no qualms. Nadal is vulnerable to others in the draw more than Federer.
FO - The biggest obstacle, yet with his improved serve and backhand (he should use more slice on clay but not too much - like stefi) I think he can take it to Nadal (if hes there) and win! If Nadal isn't there he will definitely win but not with the same ease as he wins on fast courts.
SW19 - The hard part is over, I know its still hard to win a slam, but odds on this is his 5th in a row.
US - Pressure is on him but it is a fast court and he takes it.

This MAY be his last year to complete a calender slam. We have already seen the young guns grow a little (though they have not risen yet except Nadal). By 2008 he will be 27/28 and has a lesser chance. I consider this year and last year as his chances for the slam. Please do it!!

Well, i would say that if he does get the AO and RG, then he has to be odds-on to get the calendar slam. How exciting it would be if he were to bag the first two!!

He would then be the holder of all 4 slams.. who was the last person to actually have that accolade in the men's game, I wonder??

That would be Laver.

What would be the record for consecutive slams?

I think Laver's four slams in '69 is the open-era record on the mens side.

I think it's Steffi, with six, on the womens.

Steffi's run was actually 5; AO 1988 to AO 1989, it could've been a run of 9 :yikes: if she hadn't lost the FO Final in 1989.

The record is 6 in a row though. Martina Navratilova and Margaret Court share that :)

Hi guys...I have now joined this board since they closed the BBC....

I for one am hopin Federer wins all 4 slams next year.It will be an amazing thing to actually witness it!

I think that Roger will win 2 slams def.Wimbledon is the place where he is untouchable.He was flawless this year,and really it would be a major shock if he didn't win it.

USO well his record is as impressive,and he takes care of his rest time.He had a month off this time after wimby.His prep for slams is always perfect,so I would expect the double again in 2007.

AO,this could be interesting with the slower surface,and with Nadal,he could have a genuine shot here.I just believe that like Agassi before him Federer can come back after little matchplay and start hitting great.He has a few dodgy early rounds,but then hits his stride by round 4.

FO hard to predict,but if Roger is to win this he has to take MC or Rome off Rafa.No easy task,but he could do it.However Rafa is looking after his schedule as well as Roger,and I expect it will as difficult for Roger to take 3 sets from Rafa as it is for others to take 3 sets from Roger on fast courts.

The calender slam is like a fairytale,even Tiger Woods can't do it.
Roger will win the French one year,but not 4 in one year.