Topic: The number of slams Roger Federer will win his career.

[kittens25]

It is interesting to wonder how many slams Roger Federer will retire with.   It is interesting to project, consider all the factors, and what he has done at age 23, how long he will be around, what his average ratio of success will be........

[BitterBlueBong]

Kittens, spellcheck is your friend  

Anyway, why isn't there an option for less than 8?

[Anonymous]

Anyway, why isn't there an option for less than 8?

I guess because it isnt really a possability.    

[kittens25]

Kittens, spellcheck is your friend  

Anyway, why isn't there an option for less than 8?

Why dont you also ask why there is no option for more than 20.    

[gm3106]

I guess because it isnt really a possability

It's really odd that there seems to be a lot of people in this forum that think that possible is spelt with an 'A'.

[Anonymous]

I guess because it isnt really a possability

It's really odd that there seems to be a lot of people in this forum that think that possible is spelt with an 'A'.

LOL

[kittens25]

Well I see gm3106 finally voted, as evidenced by the one 8 slam vote so far.    

[kittens25]

Who just voted 20?   That wasnt me, I would know if I did, is somebody doing that to tease me.    

[gm3106]

Who just voted 20? That wasnt me, I would know if I did, is somebody doing that to tease me.

 I definitely voted 8. You know where I stand on this issue.

[kittens25]

I definitely voted 8. You know where I stand on this issue.

I wasnt insinuating you with my last statement, I meant anybody.    It was not reflected towards you specificaly at all.

[anna_rodica]

I can`t lose the opportunity to piss off some of those foolish non-Federer fans, so i`ll vote more than 20 ok?

[wilsonboy]

20!!! that's rediculous.

[BitterBlueBong]

20!!! that's rediculous.

Well while we're doling out spelling admonishments, there is no "e" in ridiculous. It breaks my heart when I see it.  

[Burritoultimo]

TEST

[Anonymous]

if Rod Laver had been allowed to play in the majors from 1963 to 1968, he'd have 18-20 majors, and Federer wouldn't even come close.

[kittens25]

if Rod Laver had been allowed to play in the majors from 1963 to 1968, he'd have 18-20 majors, and Federer wouldn't even come close.

Wrong, if Rosewall, Gonzales, and Hoad had been allowed to play in the majors in 1960-1962 Laver would have ZERO of his 6 slams those years, and would be lucky to reach as many as 15 total in his career, since he did not start winning anything as a pro vs those guys until 1964(in 1963 he was kicked around by all 3 by his own admission), and he did not start becoming somewhat 'dominant' until 1966.

I bet you are the same individual who thinks Nadal deserves player of the year for 2005.    

[SerenasBiggestFan]

I think its hard to makle a prediction, he's in his prime but there are up and comers who may be able to beat him...i say between 10-12

[Anonymous]

if Rod Laver had been allowed to play in the majors from 1963 to 1968, he'd have 18-20 majors, and Federer wouldn't even come close.

Wrong, if Rosewall, Gonzales, and Hoad had been allowed to play in the majors in 1960-1962 Laver would have ZERO of his 6 slams those years, and would be lucky to reach as many as 15 total in his career, since he did not start winning anything as a pro vs those guys until 1964(in 1963 he was kicked around by all 3 by his own admission), and he did not start becoming somewhat 'dominant' until 1966.

I bet you are the same individual who thinks Nadal deserves player of the year for 2005.    

Not necessarily. More than likely, Laver and Rosewall would have came out with an approximately equal number of grand slams between them.

And just because Rosewall had a good overall head-to-head record against Laver doesn't mean anything when it comes time for the Grand Slams, in which Laver excels. Boris Becker had a 25-10 lifetime record against Stefan Edberg, but Edberg won a big majority of his matches against Becker in the Grand Slams.

[Tennis4you]

if Rod Laver had been allowed to play in the majors from 1963 to 1968, he'd have 18-20 majors, and Federer wouldn't even come close.

Wrong, if Rosewall, Gonzales, and Hoad had been allowed to play in the majors in 1960-1962 Laver would have ZERO of his 6 slams those years, and would be lucky to reach as many as 15 total in his career, since he did not start winning anything as a pro vs those guys until 1964(in 1963 he was kicked around by all 3 by his own admission), and he did not start becoming somewhat 'dominant' until 1966.

I bet you are the same individual who thinks Nadal deserves player of the year for 2005.    

Not necessarily. More than likely, Laver and Rosewall would have came out with an approximately equal number of grand slams between them.

And just because Rosewall had a good overall head-to-head record against Laver doesn't mean anything when it comes time for the Grand Slams, in which Laver excels. Boris Becker had a 25-10 lifetime record against Stefan Edberg, but Edberg won a big majority of his matches against Becker in the Grand Slams.

Good points.

[Anonymous]

Not necessarily. More than likely, Laver and Rosewall would have came out with an approximately equal number of grand slams between them.

And just because Rosewall had a good overall head-to-head record against Laver doesn't mean anything when it comes time for the Grand Slams, in which Laver excels. Boris Becker had a 25-10 lifetime record against Stefan Edberg, but Edberg won a big majority of his matches against Becker in the Grand Slams.

Wrong again.     The biggest events for pros in 63-67, when Laver was pro and not playing the so-called grand slams where pro slams.    Players ineligable for amateur slams, considered these events their most important and they took them extremely seriously, in fact at the time the pro field was far stronger than the amateur field, so there was alot of pride and recognition involved in these events.    Laver won 8 of 15 from 63-67, but 0 of 3 in 63 and only 1 final in 3.     It is very obvious Laver would not have won any slams until 1964, and even he himself admits that.     Based on the 8 of 15 stat, a good estimate would either be 11 of 20 or 10 of 20 had he played regular slams from 63-67; but that is assuming none of the amateurs would have been able to win any slams from the pros.    Laver won 5 slams from 68 and 69, so add those to that.   At best 15 slams would be a generous estimate for Laver.    

The whole point of your statement was to diminish Federer anyway but since you obviously dont have the knowledge of tennis in the 60s to have made an even semi-valid point you end up embarassing yourself.   Be more careful next time.