PDA

View Full Version : If Federer fails to win the US Open and any other tournament for 2 years?


darthpwner
09-14-2009, 06:15 AM
Would you say that it is time for Federer to retire? After Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000, he failed to win ANY tournament until the US Open in 2002. If Federer were to lose to Del Potro in the final and not win any tournament for 2 years, would you feel he needs to hang up his racket?

wayne2467
09-14-2009, 06:18 AM
No way- hes still full of hunger and desire. The time for him to quit is when he finds the regime to much of a chore.

wayne2467
09-14-2009, 06:19 AM
Missed a bit- If in two years time then maybe so. He will know himself when its time to quit though.

Fedfan1234
09-14-2009, 06:43 AM
That is a really big if. I don't see him losing to Del Potro but even if I think Federer will still be able to compete for the next 2 years(at least). And with compete I mean reach even more SF and F. It is not the time to ask for his retirement yet, ask me in a couple of years. I don't feel the need to think about it now.

BHud
09-14-2009, 06:47 AM
Yes...I think he is on the downhill...probably (we'll know tonight) only winning 3 of the 4 GS titles this year. Time to retire.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 07:00 AM
If it's my call, I want him to play as long as he's competitive. If he can reach fourth rounds etc. like Santoro did until the end, it's fine. As long as he's hunger and stuff, he shouldn't become a Safin, but I don't mind him playing still when he's ranked 35.

egn
09-14-2009, 07:03 AM
It all depends on Fed. I don't see that really happening..I was in disbelief when Sampras was not winning titles, but if he is still going deep and still top 10 or just outside of it I don't see why not. Besides in reality I can't see Fed finishing next year out of the top 10. Yet alone top5.

rocket
09-14-2009, 07:03 AM
Would you say that it is time for Federer to retire? After Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000, he failed to win ANY tournament until the US Open in 2002. If Federer were to lose to Del Potro in the final and not win any tournament for 2 years, would you feel he needs to hang up his racket?

IF you were facing Fed in this USO final, you would beat the guy! ;)

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 07:16 AM
Sampras just couldn't take the grind of the tour any more by 1999. Fed loves the travel and loves the tour. big diff.

henryshli
09-14-2009, 08:25 AM
Yes...I think he is on the downhill...probably (we'll know tonight) only winning 3 of the 4 GS titles this year. Time to retire.

LOL....indeed. Note sure what tennis people are watching sometimes. 4 GS finals this year and only lost the other one in 5 sets.......he'd better quit

BorisRogerFan
09-14-2009, 08:28 AM
If my grandmother had handlebars and wheels she wouldn't be my grandmother, she would be a bycicle.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 08:30 AM
Sampras could still take the grind of the tour and he was still the best in player in 99 except he got a herniated disc which took him out of action for Andre to grab #1. Its when Sampras broke the record at Wimby the following year is when he he couldnt win anything for ages and he was going for broke trying to win a slam.


As for Fed, its all depends on how motivated he stays. If it were me it would be tough to stay motivated after I broke a slam record. Only run player around even capable of beating me, and that player is almost always injured with some kind of ailment so he isnt around or isnt healthy enough to meet in the finals and continue to this rivalry. Wheres the challenge in continuing destroying the rest of the field that u have already destroyed over and over again?

Tennis Fan
09-14-2009, 08:31 AM
I personally tend to get sick of the SAME person winning for like 10 yrs in a row (I'm exaggerating a little), but I'm sure if you asked Federer this 2 yrs from now, he'd say that he has a few more yrs left in him. I think so too.

He's just one of those outstanding, talented, effortless players who should take full advantage of all his years to play before retiring. I mean an athlete's years of doing what they do is like a model's life...a short career span & then it's gone forever.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 08:39 AM
I personally tend to get sick of the SAME person winning for like 10 yrs in a row (I'm exaggerating a little), but I'm sure if you asked Federer this 2 yrs from now, he'd say that he has a few more yrs left in him. I think so too.

He's just one of those outstanding, talented, effortless players who should take full advantage of all his years to play before retiring. I mean an athlete's years of doing what they do is like a model's life...a short career span & then it's gone forever.

Definitely understand where u are coming from. I understand many people want to see dominance especially the dominance Rafa and Fed have done. But at the same time no other legacies or legends have been built.


Hell, I will petition for Roger to retire if he wins the USO? Citing, "Youre just too damn dominant over the field boy and no one else is even capable of winning." Especially with Nadal out.


Come on Fed.. You got 15 slams.. Pete didnt overstay his welcome nor did he play a whole lot of tourneys after he broke the record aside from the slams. And he was out the door


Ever since Rafa went down, its been a rehash of 05-07. The complete Fed show. Now I realize we are witnessing one of the best players of all time.. But now with Nadal hurt, now there is no great rivalry of all time.. Since no other player outside Nadal can even make it a rivalry with Fed. Unless you want to count Fed-Murray's 3 set bash clown rivalry a real rivalry. Fed is slowly getting back that aura I think that he had in 05-07 whch game him so much success. Players are going on the court almost with NO FEELING that they can beat Fed. I saw this yesterday with Djoker. There is one time in the match where I felt he felt that he could never beat Fed.


It goes back to that notion of players already accepting defeat before Roger walks on the court.. Im all for players hanging around when they still have something to prove. Fed IMO should be done proving. Hes dominated everyone at the slams on a consistent basis accept for Nadal but Nadals injured. He has the career slam, slam record.. Thats enough.


What does hanging around and dominating this younger clown field more and more doing for his career? Hes not proving anything we dont already know.. Theres no one good enough or consistent enough to make it a rivalry against him or beat him at the big stage. Only Nadal

jwbarrientos
09-14-2009, 08:40 AM
Roger will retire after getting his 21 GS, so needs 6 more.

coyfish
09-14-2009, 08:49 AM
Lol people say hes on the decline. What straight semifinal / final is he on now ??? LOL !!!!!

Even in his "slump" he has been remarkably consistant. Right now he has shown no signs up decreasing his level. Delpo has been playing fantastic so he fed loses its not because hes getting old.

This is tennis. You can't win all the time contrary to what people on this forum think.

akv89
09-14-2009, 08:57 AM
Come on Fed.. You got 15 slams.. Pete didnt overstay his welcome nor did he play a whole lot of tourneys after he broke the record aside from the slams. And he was out the door



Sampras hung around for a couple years after breaking the major record to see if he had one more left. And he did.
Federer also seems curious about how many more he can win. I can understand the sentiment of being annoyed at watching the same guy win over and over again. However, you'll be glad to know that Federer said he wants to cut down the number of tournaments he'll play from next year onwards, similar to what Pete did. I think he might play around 13-14 tournaments a year from now on, unless he really wants to keep his #1 ranking.

AAAA
09-14-2009, 09:22 AM
It goes back to that notion of players already accepting defeat before Roger walks on the court.. Im all for players hanging around when they still have something to prove. Fed IMO should be done proving. Hes dominated everyone at the slams on a consistent basis accept for Nadal but Nadals injured. He has the career slam, slam record.. Thats enough.





Not according to GameSampras or The_Head_Hunter so Federer still needs to convince a few more people. You might be right about him regaining his aura. He's loving it right now, just see the way he reacted after hitting the through the legs pass against Djokovic yesterday.

With victory today and then an Aus Open title, that's four in a row <<<< Grand Slam but much better to have it than not.

Whatever the problem was last year, he's now much faster, sharper and playing better. I get the impression he's not shanking the backhand anywhere near as much as last year.

BigServer1
09-14-2009, 09:25 AM
Definitely understand where u are coming from. I understand many people want to see dominance especially the dominance Rafa and Fed have done. But at the same time no other legacies or legends have been built.


Hell, I will petition for Roger to retire if he wins the USO? Citing, "Youre just too damn dominant over the field boy and no one else is even capable of winning." Especially with Nadal out.


Come on Fed.. You got 15 slams.. Pete didnt overstay his welcome nor did he play a whole lot of tourneys after he broke the record aside from the slams. And he was out the door


Ever since Rafa went down, its been a rehash of 05-07. The complete Fed show. Now I realize we are witnessing one of the best players of all time.. But now with Nadal hurt, now there is no great rivalry of all time.. Since no other player outside Nadal can even make it a rivalry with Fed. Unless you want to count Fed-Murray's 3 set bash clown rivalry a real rivalry. Fed is slowly getting back that aura I think that he had in 05-07 whch game him so much success. Players are going on the court almost with NO FEELING that they can beat Fed. I was this yesterday with Djoker. There is one time in the match where I felt he felt that he could beat Fed.


It goes back to that notion of players already accepting defeat before Roger walks on the court.. Im all for players hanging around when they still have something to prove. Fed IMO should be done proving. Hes dominated everyone at the slams on a consistent basis accept for Nadal but Nadals injured. He has the career slam, slam record.. Thats enough.


What does hanging around and dominating this younger clown field more and more doing for his career? Hes not proving anything we dont already know.. Theres no one good enough or consistent enough to make it a rivalry against him or beat him at the big stage. Only Nadal

I think that Federer wants to stick around in hopes of getting to play Nadal on HC and grass more, and possibly slay that demon on clay (not that it's likely to happen...).

I just think it's tough because as it stands, if Federer retires on top, all of his critics knock him for being owned by Nadal. If he sticks around for a while and wins more, he's being greedy or beating an injured Nadal so it doesn't mean as much.

I hope he sticks around for a bit, I love watching him play and I think he's good for the game.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 09:34 AM
Not according to GameSampras or The_Head_Hunter so Federer still needs to convince a few more people. You might be right about him regaining his aura. He's loving it right now, just see the way he reacted after hitting the through the legs pass against Djokovic yesterday.

With victory today and then an Aus Open title, that's four in a row <<<< Grand Slam but much better to have it than not.

Whatever the problem was last year, he's now much faster, sharper and playing better. I get the impression he's not shanking the backhand anywhere near as much as last year.



I thought he looked awfully good last year. Yea he had some uncharacteristic losses, but at the same time he was reaching slam finals.. I think the biggest difference was Rafa reached his absolute peak and zenith last year. Unfortunately, he got injured and couldnt carry that over into this year.

If nadal stayed healthy and didnt get the injuries who knows how this year would have shaped up.

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 09:40 AM
I think that Federer wants to stick around in hopes of getting to play Nadal on HC and grass more, and possibly slay that demon on clay (not that it's likely to happen...).
I just think it's tough because as it stands, if Federer retires on top, all of his critics knock him for being owned by Nadal. If he sticks around for a while and wins more, he's being greedy or beating an injured Nadal so it doesn't mean as much.

I hope he sticks around for a bit, I love watching him play and I think he's good for the game.



Of course this would be under the assumption that Nadal does indeed get back to top form and get healthy? No guaranteee that will happen and there is no gurantee that Nadal will return to peak form that he was in 2008 really. So its tough to say.. Maybe Del Potro will rise up

Bruguera
09-14-2009, 09:43 AM
And to be quite honest, I think its best to either go out on top or go out with a slam like Pete did. Thats the best way to go. Not like Andre did in 06 where there was nothing left. Andre should have retired at the AO in 2003 IMO. Sampras retired in 2002 after winning the USO. Fed should retire maybe next year USO? I assume he has another big year anyways

Polvorin
09-14-2009, 09:47 AM
If Federer were to lose to Del Potro in the final and not win any tournament for 2 years, would you feel he needs to hang up his racket?

Yeah and if hell freezes over, I'll sell popsicles.

He's going to stick around for a long time because he loves playing the game. He's made that very clear.

darthpwner
09-14-2009, 05:35 PM
This prediction might actually come true:)