PDA

View Full Version : Federer - number 1 after 30 years old?


timnz
11-05-2009, 05:23 PM
Hello,

I wondered what people's thoughts on Federer's prospects of longetivity at the top.

Quite a number of male tennis players have been ranked number 1 after the age of 30, for example:

Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi

can Federer follow in their legacy of being number one in his 30's ?

AAAA
11-05-2009, 05:42 PM
If it's a weak era he'll be #1 in his thirties otherwise no.

OddJack
11-05-2009, 05:50 PM
It is quite possible imo. I cant see why not.

Nadal is not going back to his 08 levels. The rest do not have consistency to get to and stay at #1.

Unless a new talent appears within a year or so...

Forget Murray too.

Cantankersore
11-05-2009, 06:02 PM
It is quite possible imo. I cant see why not.

Nadal is not going back to his 08 levels. The rest do not have consistency to get to and stay at #1.

Unless a new talent appears within a year or so...

Forget Murray too.

Forget Murray? Really? As much as I dislike Murray, he is still at his physical peak and is probably going to keep wining similar numbers of points for the next few years. In fact, he'll probably win a grand slam eventually and get more.

This year, Federer had a pretty extraordinary year by most people's standards, and isn't in the lead by too much. If he plays fewer tournaments and has a bit of a drop off, which is almost certain to happen as he ages, he could easily start winning fewer points than Murray. That isn't even to mention Nadal, who probably isn't in the twilight of his career.

On the other hand, it is Federer, and I wouldn't put anything past him. The funny thing is that if he ends up winning 20+ grand slams, gets a calendar slam, and keeps the number one ranking well into his 30's, people are still going to be like "yeah, well Sampras would own him any day on fast grass, weak era".

Sephiroth619
11-05-2009, 06:16 PM
He will easily be number 1 in his 30's. He is the greatest.

Hell, he could be put in eras of the past or future and he'd decimate all of his opponents.

ctbmar
11-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Yeah, the era has been weak from year 2003 up to year 2016. 13 years or more, with no renewing talent that can challenge Federer. It's a ridiculous to think that for a whole decade, with a growing sport, more technology, stronger and faster players, critics still think this era is weak. I can't wait for Roger to become 30 to 31, so that critics can compare Roger with Sampras who struggled for 2 years in 2001 to 2002 before winning his last tournament at US Open 2002.

bolo
11-05-2009, 06:53 PM
Highly unlikely imo.

edberg505
11-05-2009, 07:01 PM
Yeah, the era has been weak from year 2003 up to year 2016. 13 years or more, with no renewing talent that can challenge Federer. It's a ridiculous to think that for a whole decade, with a growing sport, more technology, stronger and faster players, critics still think this era is weak. I can't wait for Roger to become 30 to 31, so that critics can compare Roger with Sampras who struggled for 2 years in 2001 to 2002 before winning his last tournament at US Open 2002.

LOL, people will be shouting weak ear from the mountain tops if that were to happen.

Kemitak
11-05-2009, 07:06 PM
If it's a weak era he'll be #1 in his thirties otherwise no.

If Federer is #1 then it's a weak era.

IvanAndreevich
11-05-2009, 07:15 PM
Put early 30's Fed into the era before he reached number 1, and he would be number 1 (early 2000's). Even Federer's poor performance in 2008 would have given him number one easily in many eras.

NamRanger
11-05-2009, 07:20 PM
LOL, people will be shouting weak ear from the mountain tops if that were to happen.



I would have to agree though. The era would probably be a little weaker than the other eras if Federer was #1 past 30, unless Federer turned back the clock somehow and became Federer of 2006 again.

OddJack
11-05-2009, 08:03 PM
Forget Murray? Really? As much as I dislike Murray, he is still at his physical peak and is probably going to keep wining similar numbers of points for the next few years. In fact, he'll probably win a grand slam eventually and get more.

This year, Federer had a pretty extraordinary year by most people's standards, and isn't in the lead by too much. If he plays fewer tournaments and has a bit of a drop off, which is almost certain to happen as he ages, he could easily start winning fewer points than Murray. That isn't even to mention Nadal, who probably isn't in the twilight of his career.

On the other hand, it is Federer, and I wouldn't put anything past him. The funny thing is that if he ends up winning 20+ grand slams, gets a calendar slam, and keeps the number one ranking well into his 30's, people are still going to be like "yeah, well Sampras would own him any day on fast grass, weak era".

I agree with some of things you say about Murray, but I was talking about the number 1 spot. If Rodge is not there, I believe Nadal, Djoker and Delpo, who are the same age or younger than Murray, can deny him the number 1 spot.

What I do not agree with you is that he will win a major. " Eventually" is not good enough. I agree with those ( Pat Mac, Wilander) who said you cant win a major with a BH or being passive. If he keeps pushing he will never win a major.

kishnabe
11-05-2009, 08:41 PM
You don't need to post this question, undoubtfully federer will be no 1 for a few more years.

grafselesfan
11-05-2009, 09:47 PM
It is difficult to say. I dont like Federer so I wouldnt be happy about it. It could happen though. It depends largely on Nadal and if he is able to recover physically enough to return to his 2008 level. If not then no way for Federer as he isnt going to ever get significantly better than he was the last 2 years again IMO. Djokovic and Murray are both talented players who can definitely win slams in the future, but can they sustain the level for an entire year to be #1? I am not sure, I would love to see Djokovic do it mind you. Del Potro the same. Someone new? I certainly dont see someone we hardly know anything of now or really raw at this point (eg- Dmitrov, Tomic) being #1 in the next 3 years atleast. Nor do I see anyone currently in the #6-#20 ever being #1 other than possibly Cilic, and Cilic is even less likely to reach such lofty height in the next several years than are the more established Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro. So it could happen, but there is a good chance it wont, and I for one hope it doesnt.

Agassifan
11-05-2009, 10:47 PM
If Nadal gets back to 2008 and Fed gets back to 2006, Fed will still win 3 slams a year.

Lotto
11-05-2009, 11:57 PM
As people have said it's difficult to tell, ah? You don't know what Roger's motivation levels will be like, his competition's injury/maturity/motivation status. And people who talk about weak eras are just jealous of Rogers insane achievements to be honest.

aphex
11-06-2009, 01:19 AM
If Nadal gets back to 2008 and Fed gets back to 2006, Fed will still win 3 slams a year.

haha exactly...actually make that 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

AlpineCadet
11-06-2009, 01:20 AM
NO WAY. Del Potro, Djokovic, and Murray will def give him trouble. :(

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-06-2009, 02:29 AM
I believe Nadal, Djoker and Delpo, who are the same age or younger than Murray, can deny him the number 1 spot.

Oops! Nadal is 1 year OLDER than Murray, Djokovic the same age and Del Potro 1 year younger. There is NO age-factor at all between these 4 players.

OddJack
11-06-2009, 05:03 AM
Oops! Nadal is 1 year OLDER than Murray, Djokovic the same age and Del Potro 1 year younger. There is NO age-factor at all between these 4 players.

oops?

There is no age factor? That was my point.
Duh!

grafselesfan
11-06-2009, 05:24 AM
If Nadal gets back to 2008 and Fed gets back to 2006, Fed will still win 3 slams a year.

Whether or not this is true (and for the record I dont) it really doesnt matter. Federer returning to 2006 level is not going to happen. Nadal returning to 2008 level could still happen, but also might not.

TheMusicLover
11-06-2009, 07:59 AM
Highly unlikely.
Despite 2009 being a GREAT year for him, I don't think anyone can deny that his game has been in decline for at least some 18 months now.
Still... strange things do happen at times.

Povl Carstensen
11-06-2009, 10:01 AM
Maybe this is a weak TW era.

Michael Bluth
11-06-2009, 10:56 AM
Weak era please.

Competing with Nadal for the no.1 ranking>competing with the no.1 beats with Rafter, Chang and Rios.

Does anyone think Fed would lose the no.1 ranking to the likes of Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya and Rafter?

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 10:57 AM
Weak era please.

Competing with Nadal for the no.1 ranking>competing with the no.1 beats with Rafter, Chang and Rios.

Does anyone think Fed would lose the no.1 ranking to the likes of Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya and Rafter?

Competing with a constantly injured and rusty Nadal who only played maybe half the season you mean? What amazes me is Nadal got back the 2nd rank in the world rather easily from Murray and even DJoker all the meantime being far from healthy and top form doing it.. How could Murray or Djoker who have been pretty healthy all year and havent missed nearly as much time as Nadal has let this happen.


Is not as though Fed had to go through hell and fire to get back that number 1 spot. His main opposition was taken out or else he would probably still be #2 and its not as though Djoker or Murray did anything much this year slam wise. So it was a pretty easy travel back to the top for Fed

akv89
11-06-2009, 11:06 AM
Competing with a constantly injured and rusty Nadal who only played maybe half the season you mean? What amazes me is Nadal got back the 2nd rank in the world rather easily from Murray and even DJoker all the meantime being far from healthy and top form doing it.. How could Murray or Djoker who have been pretty healthy all year and havent missed nearly as much time as Nadal has let this happen.


Is not as though Fed had to go through hell and fire to get back that number 1 spot. His main opposition was taken out or else he would probably still be #2 and its not as though Djoker or Murray did anything much this year slam wise

Nadal's been playing the entire season. He missed one tournament and he was in prime form in the first half of the season. It's not as if he only played 10 tournaments the entire year.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:11 AM
Nadal's been playing the entire season. He missed one tournament and he was in prime form in the first half of the season. It's not as if he only played 10 tournaments the entire year.


Nadal was at his absolute best.. The hands down clear cut #1 player in the world from 08 until early 09 until it was cut short at Madrid and he hasnt been the same since through the entire season. So as I said, is not as though Fed had to really steal back that Number 1 spot from Nadal. It was kind of handed to him. Nadal burned out/injured for RG and far from top form, misses Wimbeldon, thats a while right there.. and finally returns during fast HC season. So if Nadal successfully defended his RG and Wimbeldon title, would fed be number 1 right now? Fed didnt have to beat Nadal to reclaim his #1.. Nadal went down with injuries.

akv89
11-06-2009, 11:27 AM
Nadal was at his absolute best.. The hands down clear cut #1 player in the world from 08 until early 09 until it was cut short at Madrid and he hasnt been the same since through the entire season. So as I said, is not as though Fed had to really steal back that Number 1 spot from Nadal. It was kind of handed to him. Nadal burned out/injured for RG and far from top form, misses Wimbeldon, thats a while right there.. and finally returns during fast HC season. So if Nadal successfully defended his RG and Wimbeldon title, would fed be number 1 right now? Fed didnt have to beat Nadal to reclaim his #1.. Nadal went down with injuries.

Federer was at his absolute best...The hands down clear cut #1 player in the world from 04-07 until it was cut short by mono and later by back problems and of course by grandpa time. It is completely pointless hypothesizing about what a player would do if he wasn't injured because injuries are part of the game. You need to acknowledge that players are not always going to be at the best of their game and it is up to them to do their best to ensure that they can play to the best of their abilities as much as they can.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:30 AM
Federer was at his absolute best...The hands down clear cut #1 player in the world from 04-07 until it was cut short by mono and later by back problems and of course by grandpa time. It is completely pointless hypothesizing about what a player would do if he wasn't injured because injuries are part of the game. You need to acknowledge that players are not always going to be at the best of their game and it is up to them to do their best to ensure that they can play to the best of their abilities as much as they can.

I agree... But.. When Federer was at his best was Nadal was not. He was still molding as a player.. Fed may not be at his best but he certainly wasnt at his lowest this past two season. Look at slam results 08-09. He reached every slam final this year, one two slams, he reached 3 slam finals last year. So its not like Nadal's victories came over Fed when he was completely washed up you know. And it is all hypothetical. But also realize that Nadal may have successfully defended his RG and Wimbeldon crown as well if healthy and could still be number 1 right now. Im pointing the facts. and the facts are Federer didnt have to directly overtake Nadal. The pieces fell into place for Federer. Thats the truth.

volleynets
11-06-2009, 11:33 AM
Weak era please.

Competing with Nadal for the no.1 ranking>competing with the no.1 beats with Rafter, Chang and Rios.

Does anyone think Fed would lose the no.1 ranking to the likes of Rios, Kafelnikov, Moya and Rafter?

You would be surprised my friend. Some here think that Rafter would beat Federer in his prime on all surfaces.................

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:37 AM
You would be surprised my friend. Some here think that Rafter would beat Federer in his prime on all surfaces.................


Peak Rafter would give Fed some problems at the USO I think. And Rafter does own a winning h2h against Federer even though Fed hadnt hit his prime yet

akv89
11-06-2009, 11:37 AM
I agree... But.. When Federer was at his best was Nadal was not. He was still molding as a player.. Fed may not be at his best but he certainly wasnt at his lowest this past two season. Look at slam results 08-09. He reached every slam final this year, one two slams, he reached 3 slam finals last year. So its not like Nadal's victories came over Fed when he was completely washed up you know. And it is all hypothetical. But also realize that Nadal may have successfully defended his RG and Wimbeldon crown as well if healthy and could still be number 1 right now. Im pointing the facts. and the facts are Federer didnt have to directly overtake Nadal. The pieces fell into place for Federer. Thats the truth.

You're pointing at possibilities that failed to materialize. Nadal could have defended RG or won Wimbledon, but didn't. Federer certainly wasn't playing horrible tennis last year, but other than a few matches, he was way off his usual game for a good part of the year. He was struggling more than Nadal is right now when he was lost to Fish, Stepanek, and Karlovic. He was down 2 breaks in the deciding set against Ruben Ramirez-freakin-Hidalgo. His performance at masters was not very good. In majors, his performances, although still under par in AO and RG, were still good enough to take him to the semis/finals.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:40 AM
You're pointing at possibilities that failed to materialize. Nadal could have defended RG or won Wimbledon, but didn't. Federer certainly wasn't playing horrible tennis last year, but other than a few matches, he was way off his usual game for a good part of the year. He was struggling more than Nadal is right now when he was lost to Fish, Stepanek, and Karlovic. He was down 2 breaks in the deciding set against Ruben Ramirez-freakin-Hidalgo. His performance at masters was not very good. In majors, his performances, although still under par in AO and RG, were still good enough to take him to the semis/finals.



His performance at the slams though were still impressive. He went through all of wimbeldon without dropping an entire set. Reached the semis of the AO with mono. Reached the finals of the french and won the USO. Not bad as far as slams go. As far as his uncharacteristic losses at non slam events.. well Federer IMO these days has been putting most of his focus on slams.. Is he really going to go the extra mile at non slam events considering where he is at in his career? Im pointing out the fact that Federer didnt directly overtake Nadal by beating him. He overtook Nadal because Nadal went out with injuries. Is this a possibility or a fact? Its a fact....

akv89
11-06-2009, 11:51 AM
His performance at the slams though were still impressive. He went through all of wimbeldon without dropping an entire set. Reached the semis of the AO with mono. Reached the finals of the french and won the USO. Not bad as far as slams go. As far as his uncharacteristic losses at non slam events.. well Federer IMO these days has been putting most of his focus on slams.. Is he really going to go the extra mile at non slam events considering where he is at in his career? Im pointing out the fact that Federer didnt directly overtake Nadal by beating him. He overtook Nadal because Nadal went out with injuries. Is this a possibility or a fact? Its a fact....

Unfortunately, Nadal hasn't been good enough to consistently meet Federer in finals this year. You're hyping Nadal's ranking because Federer still managed to get to finals during his rough patch last year. Seems counterintuitive to fault somebody for doing well despite their poor form, while praising another for not managing to do the same. BTW, Federer did beat Nadal in the final of a clay masters in Spain. No excuses please. I can make a bunch too.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Unfortunately, Nadal hasn't been good enough to consistently meet Federer in finals this year. You're hyping Nadal's ranking because Federer still managed to get to finals during his rough patch last year. Seems counterintuitive to fault somebody for doing well despite their poor form, while praising another for not managing to do the same. BTW, Federer did beat Nadal in the final of a clay masters in Spain. No excuses please. I can make a bunch too.

Nadal was good enough through most of 08 and early 09 to meet Fed and beat him. You saying all of 2009 Nadal just wasnt good enough to meet Fed in the finals and beat him? You dont take his time off and him trying to get back into the grind of the tour as any reason for this? Come on now. You want to defend Roger all through 08 due to mono, yet I cant use Nadal's consistent nagging injuries in his defense? Thats real fair

akv89
11-06-2009, 12:03 PM
Nadal was good enough through most of 08 and early 09 to meet Fed and beat him. You saying all of 2009 Nadal just wasnt good enough to meet Fed in the finals and beat him? You dont take his time off and him trying to get back into the grind of the tour as any reason for this? Come on now. You want to defend Roger all through 08 due to mono, yet I cant use Nadal's consistent nagging injuries in his defense? Thats real fair

I'm not defending any injury. I mentioned Federer's mono simply as a counterpoint to your point about Nadal being injured. Making hypotheticals about what a player would do if they were not injured/diseased etc etc is simply pointless.

flyinghippos101
11-06-2009, 12:16 PM
I agree... But.. When Federer was at his best was Nadal was not. He was still molding as a player.. Fed may not be at his best but he certainly wasnt at his lowest this past two season. Look at slam results 08-09. He reached every slam final this year, one two slams, he reached 3 slam finals last year. So its not like Nadal's victories came over Fed when he was completely washed up you know. And it is all hypothetical. But also realize that Nadal may have successfully defended his RG and Wimbeldon crown as well if healthy and could still be number 1 right now. Im pointing the facts. and the facts are Federer didnt have to directly overtake Nadal. The pieces fell into place for Federer. Thats the truth.

Well in Fed's standards, it was a ***** year. Of course, you'd be expecting minimum two slams after coming off the last three years with atleast two slams. Fed really did hit rock bottom in 08 and early 09, he lost his #1 ranking, he had a emotional breakdown at the AO and Miami and his confidence was destroyed when Nadal won wimbledon.

TheMusicLover
11-06-2009, 12:47 PM
I'm not defending any injury. I mentioned Federer's mono simply as a counterpoint to your point about Nadal being injured. Making hypotheticals about what a player would do if they were not injured/diseased etc etc is simply pointless.

Indeed. It's not just up to these two players alone - to win tournaments you'll have to beat ALL of your opponents. This to counterpoint all those silly claims of folks putting an asterisk towards player X's victory "because player Y wasn't there...", which I've seen happening quite a few times too many this year.

Conquistador
11-06-2009, 04:56 PM
My thoughts are that Federer could be number 1 after 40 if he wanted to. He's that good. He can adjust to anything, call him the weatherman. Federer's longevity is greater than anyone elses. Look at his movement and look at his grace. What a role model, what a Federer.

jrepac
11-06-2009, 08:16 PM
Certainly possible...got to think it will depend on his motivation level and if Nadal surpasses him. Barring any injuries or physical problems, naturally.

And, it is possible to appreciate Fed, respect his accomplishments and still think this is a relatively weak era....

I think Fed is great...most of his competition is not...

Agassifan
11-06-2009, 08:48 PM
? Im pointing out the fact that Federer didnt directly overtake Nadal by beating him. He overtook Nadal because Nadal went out with injuries. Is this a possibility or a fact? Its a fact....

Fact is, federer has 15 slams with the career grand slam. That is the only fact. The rest are details and speculation. Rafa might have lost in the 2nd round of wimbledon had he played. It was not fed's fault.

tt2003
11-06-2009, 08:51 PM
he is no 1 when he is 40

Leelord337
11-06-2009, 08:53 PM
watch this thread be pulled back up in 3 years, ;) but how can you not say he's going to be #1 at age 30, I mean he's dominated since 2003,

Actually mariano rivera comes to mind...he's been such a consistent closer for over 10 years and just closed out the world series a few days ago. So I will safely say that federer will be #1 at age 30

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 09:37 PM
Well in Fed's standards, it was a ***** year. Of course, you'd be expecting minimum two slams after coming off the last three years with atleast two slams. Fed really did hit rock bottom in 08 and early 09, he lost his #1 ranking, he had a emotional breakdown at the AO and Miami and his confidence was destroyed when Nadal won wimbledon.

But if not for Nadal achieving prime form, Fed would have won RG, wimbeldon, USO in 08 and the AO in 09. So not bad at all. Only difference is Nadal hit his peak. Without Nadal being around Fed still have have won 3 slams last year most likely and 3 this year

Tennis_Hands
11-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Federer's ranking at the top of the game is hugely dependant on his success in the Grand Slam events. As long as he keeps winnig/getting to he semis/finals of those, he will always have a shot at the number 1 position. So, to me, it boils down to who is going to challenge Federer in the Slams. Nadal is there. With his win over Federer, Del Po exposed Federer's inability to dominate as he used to do circa (2003-2007). So, it is not down to Federer only any more. It is more about whether the young players have the balls to step up and claim things.

On the other hand, there is NO other player, who has such a clear strategy in terms of scheduling, priorities and ability to follow that strategy as Federer. He might lose a match here and there (even important matches in Slams), but, obviously, the #1 ranking is not about winnig a single match. It will depend on whether the other top players are willing to follow Federer's steps in that regard.