PDA

View Full Version : Federer is the opposite to Sampras. The more Fed wins the longer he plays.


RAFA2005RG
08-23-2011, 09:16 PM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

Pwned
08-23-2011, 09:17 PM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

I agree to a point. Not sure on how long he has but I don't see a quick retirement from him while near the top.

jokinla
08-23-2011, 09:55 PM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

He seems to love playing, but if he hasn't won any more slams by the end of next years Wimbledon, then I don't think it will happen, and can see him maybe playing another two years at most, even with his love for the game, all the questions/talk of retirement at that point will I'm sure change his love.

monfed
08-23-2011, 10:04 PM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

Here we go. :lol:

Clay lover
08-23-2011, 10:32 PM
Um. Fed is still better than 99% of the tour at this point, why retire?

rossi46
08-24-2011, 02:53 AM
Um. Fed is still better than 99% of the tour at this point, why retire?

Because he can't beat the other 1%.

In any case, how are any of us to know that he won't immediately retire if he was to win No. 17 ???

Romismak
08-24-2011, 04:07 AM
I think it is well known that Roger is tennis fanatic- or tennis obsesed- i remember how Marat once said if i had Rogerīs love for tennis - most likely Roger wonīt retire after big tittle- and i really can imagine him to stay at top a long time- he wonīt be probably in 2 years slam contender- but really can be still in top 10 for long time with his game and can play on all-surfaces. Probably will be soon ahead of Nole and Rafa in raking by far, than most likely Murray will be ahead of him, maybe someone else- maybe Del Potro once he will be back, but still in top 10 he should be comfortably long time from now and this will mean he will be playing and playing

Romismak
08-24-2011, 04:09 AM
I think it is well known that Roger is tennis fanatic- or tennis obsesed- i remember how Marat once said if i had Rogerīs love for tennis - most likely Roger wonīt retire after big tittle- and i really can imagine him to stay at top a long time- he wonīt be probably in 2 years slam contender- but really can be still in top 10 for long time with his game and can play on all-surfaces. Probably will be soon ahead of Nole and Rafa in raking by far, than most likely Murray will be ahead of him, maybe someone else- maybe Del Potro once he will be back, but still in top 10 he should be comfortably long time from now and this will mean he will be playing and playing

of course they will be ahead of him in ranking- Nole and Rafa

Hood_Man
08-24-2011, 04:17 AM
I can't see him retiring after winning a major, it would motivate him to carry on more than anything.

I've always imagined he'd retire at the Basel tournament anyway.

CMM
08-24-2011, 04:20 AM
The kids are growing up fast and I assume that once they'll start going to kindergarten they won't be able to travel with him and Mirka will have to take care of the kids at home. I can't imagine Federer travelling on tour while his family is at home. But maybe I'm wrong.

buscemi
08-24-2011, 04:24 AM
If Federer starts a decline at the U.S. Open, drops in the rankings, plays poorly at the next few Majors, etc., and then pulls off a miraculous victory at the 2012 Olympics, I could see him retiring after finally winning Olympic Gold in singles.

dozu
08-24-2011, 04:25 AM
lol - Fed has enough money to have an entire kindergarten flying with him on the tour.

Laver777
08-24-2011, 04:27 AM
Well it really is only rafa and djoko he doesnt seem to be able to beat. but all he needs is a bit of luck to fall his way. maybe an upset of nadal, djokovic in a slam and theres no one else who he cant beat. people say hes had it but hes still number 3 in the world by a loonnggg way. when sampras was his age i dont think he was even in the top ten from memory. also i think that match he played against djoko at the french was some of the best hes ever played. its just a shame he had to back it up and play against nadal.

defrule
08-24-2011, 05:11 AM
Federer is going to be that dark horse in the years to come that no one will want in their side of the draw.

He's that kind of guy who can suddenly goat someday and take you out. Just like how he goated to take out Djokovic in what seemed to be his French Open title.

KHSOLO
08-24-2011, 06:12 AM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

Doubfull that Fed will win the US Open

CDestroyer
08-24-2011, 06:15 AM
(Murray is a greater danger to Nadal than Federer is, so Nadal won't mind if he has Federer in his half. Djokovic won't want Federer in his half though, true that)

Shoot even Ivan Dodig is a threat to Nadal lately. **** is in a world of hurt.

Sentinel
08-24-2011, 09:48 AM
lol - Fed has enough money to have an entire kindergarten flying with him on the tour.
Can't Fed just pay one million to each of the seven contestants to lose to him? 2 mill for the finals. That's loose change for him :)

Tilden1893
08-24-2011, 01:40 PM
Because he can't beat the other 1%.

In any case, how are any of us to know that he won't immediately retire if he was to win No. 17 ???

Part of the 1% was @ the French Open Semis this year!

celoft
08-24-2011, 01:44 PM
Um. Fed is still better than 99% of the tour at this point, why retire?

I concur.....

Tammo
08-24-2011, 01:46 PM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

Even though I'm not a Fed fan, after doing everything and winning everything you can get tired. Also he can't seem to handle the power that the big guys bring.

Tough Gut
08-24-2011, 04:52 PM
Because he can't beat the other 1%.

In any case, how are any of us to know that he won't immediately retire if he was to win No. 17 ???

If you quit because you can't beat 1% of the world your messed up in the head and the most arrogant person of all time. In this case djokovic should be the only player on tour. But wait, he lost 2 whole matches already. So maybe not.

sadowsk2
08-24-2011, 06:13 PM
I'm happy to see Sampras go out on top... Much like Elway and Jordan did... Much rather see that then him getting jail-sexed into retirement... And no way Fed wins the US Open this year or hereafter... Without a booming serve like Sampras has to get him cheap easy points he'll be run off the court like in Montreal and Cinci

cc0509
08-24-2011, 06:20 PM
No chance of Federer retiring with a victory. He's going to play on until he can't buy a win. If Federer wins this here US Open, it will buy him another 3-5 years. And if he wins any more slams during that period then again even more years of Federer. I'm surprised so many people think he will retire next year after the Olympics.

You are delusional as always. Federer play another 3-5 years? I bet you anything that will not be the case.

He will be done if he has no slam win and after he competes in the 2012 Olympics and tries to win a gold medal by the end of 2012 or 2013 the latest. Mark my words.

zapvor
08-24-2011, 06:49 PM
the funny thing is how we discuss such things. it speaks to his GOATness. just because he's not winning slams means he's going to /near retirement. i guess all ATP pros from #15-1000 can all retire now. they dont have a shot at winning a slam!

pvaudio
08-24-2011, 07:09 PM
^^^ I was just thinking this. The fact that we're discussing someone retiring when he can only make it to the QFs of any tournament is absurd. Even now, no one gets worried about a Federer match unless it's Rafa or Djoker, and rarely Delpo and Murray. Beyond that, no one else in the top 10 can consistently give him problems. When you're that good, why would you retire? Because you've aged to the point where you can't dominate everyone? Please.

RAFA2005RG
08-24-2011, 09:40 PM
the funny thing is how we discuss such things. it speaks to his GOATness. just because he's not winning slams means he's going to /near retirement. i guess all ATP pros from #15-1000 can all retire now. they dont have a shot at winning a slam!

^^^ I was just thinking this. The fact that we're discussing someone retiring when he can only make it to the QFs of any tournament is absurd. Even now, no one gets worried about a Federer match unless it's Rafa or Djoker, and rarely Delpo and Murray. Beyond that, no one else in the top 10 can consistently give him problems. When you're that good, why would you retire? Because you've aged to the point where you can't dominate everyone? Please.

I know, cc0509 and all the other goons and loons out there are obsessed with "legacy", but the player is not. The player wants to play. Also, nobody knows when the next weak top 5 will arrive. Hewitt dominated such a field, and if Federer hangs around long enough he will surely find another weak top 5 to dominate.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 09:52 PM
^^^ I was just thinking this. The fact that we're discussing someone retiring when he can only make it to the QFs of any tournament is absurd. Even now, no one gets worried about a Federer match unless it's Rafa or Djoker, and rarely Delpo and Murray. Beyond that, no one else in the top 10 can consistently give him problems. When you're that good, why would you retire? Because you've aged to the point where you can't dominate everyone? Please.

This is so not true. Federer is being defeated by jokers who he would have defeated in his sleep in his prime--i.e. Berdych, Melzer, etc. etc.

For a champion of Federer's caliber, just getting to the QF's is not enough. When you win 16 slams how is getting to the QF supposed to make Federer feel good? If we were talking about Tsonga for instance it would be different, but with Federer there are higher expectations probably most of all from himself.

cc0509
08-24-2011, 09:54 PM
I know, cc0509 and all the other goons and loons out there are obsessed with "legacy", but the player is not. The player wants to play. Also, nobody knows when the next weak top 5 will arrive. Hewitt dominated such a field, and if Federer hangs around long enough he will surely find another weak top 5 to dominate.

That is truly a dumb comment. Federer is not obsessed with legacy? LOL! Right, a 16 time grand slam champion is not obsessed with legacy. Only in your world!

sadowsk2
08-25-2011, 06:14 AM
the funny thing is how we discuss such things. it speaks to his GOATness. just because he's not winning slams means he's going to /near retirement. i guess all ATP pros from #15-1000 can all retire now. they dont have a shot at winning a slam!

People said that about Sampras and others as well who had great careers and were in the twilight of their career... Nobody wants to watch a former great, play beyond the level you're accustomed to watching him play at... For someone like a Sampras, a Federer, a Jordan, Magic, etc... making the QF consistantly and then getting blown off the court is not what you want to see from someone like that... Hoisting a trophy, like Elway, like Jordan, like Sampras and then leaving out on top is a great way to leave the game... On your own terms when the field knows you still are a champion. How many folks want to see Federer act like Favre- chasing a championship you're no longer good enough to win anymore, but good enough to be relevant in piecing together a run? Thats why you hear so many athletes envious of how Sampras, Jordan, and Elway did it... The elite like to go out as champions... on their own terms.

sadowsk2
08-25-2011, 06:17 AM
That is truly a dumb comment. Federer is not obsessed with legacy? LOL! Right, a 16 time grand slam champion is not obsessed with legacy. Only in your world!

I agree- Federer is and SHOULD be concerned about his legacy... when you're considered one of the top 5 players of all time, you should be concerned about how history viewed your career, beginning to end... All the greats acknowledge that... Magic, Bird, Jordan, Elway, Manning, Brady, Sampras, Lendl, Gretzky, Messier, etc.. the list goes on and on.

RAFA2005RG
08-25-2011, 06:36 AM
That is truly a dumb comment. Federer is not obsessed with legacy? LOL! Right, a 16 time grand slam champion is not obsessed with legacy. Only in your world!

Wow you know nothing about sport. Federer's legacy can only be added to, not reduced. Ali and Jordan had sub-par finishes to their careers, Ali losing countless fights as a flat-footed chubby, and Jordan missing the playoffs in his last 2 years. But Ali won points for his courage. And Jordan won points for setting records for being the oldest player ever to score 50 in a game (and scored 45 on Jason Kidd a day later). Jordan was no longer a top 10 player but what he did for his age was spectacular, just as Connors was spectacular for his age, and Agassi.

Most great athletes retire with far from their best form, but all people care about is their prime. And often, those who play tennis into their mid-late 30s are praised heavily for it. Federer knows this, and that is why he has already said he aims to play as long as Agassi and see the next generations. Federer is currently ranked 3. I wonder how long it will take for him to fall outside of the top 10, maybe 3, 4 or even 5 years!

rossi46
08-25-2011, 01:37 PM
If you quit because you can't beat 1% of the world your messed up in the head and the most arrogant person of all time. In this case djokovic should be the only player on tour. But wait, he lost 2 whole matches already. So maybe not.

Your on the money with arrogant part

cc0509
08-25-2011, 09:11 PM
Wow you know nothing about sport. Federer's legacy can only be added to, not reduced. Ali and Jordan had sub-par finishes to their careers, Ali losing countless fights as a flat-footed chubby, and Jordan missing the playoffs in his last 2 years. But Ali won points for his courage. And Jordan won points for setting records for being the oldest player ever to score 50 in a game (and scored 45 on Jason Kidd a day later). Jordan was no longer a top 10 player but what he did for his age was spectacular, just as Connors was spectacular for his age, and Agassi.

Most great athletes retire with far from their best form, but all people care about is their prime. And often, those who play tennis into their mid-late 30s are praised heavily for it. Federer knows this, and that is why he has already said he aims to play as long as Agassi and see the next generations. Federer is currently ranked 3. I wonder how long it will take for him to fall outside of the top 10, maybe 3, 4 or even 5 years!

I know Federer's legacy can only be added to, not reduced. Duh!

That is not the point here. The point is that in my opinion I can't see Federer playing for 4 or 5 more years. I mean I think that is just crazy. Connors was an exception and he was able to keep up his intense drive. Federer does not have that same intensity Connors did. Agassi was a different case because it was like a second career for him after his meltdown when he was younger.

If Federer can't win more slams and he falls out of the top 10 you think he is still going to want to play? What for? To rack up more frequent flyer miles?
I can't see a champion of Federer's caliber continue to play if he does not win more slams and then as time goes by loses in early rounds and has his ranking drop. You can have your opinon but I have mine and I will bet you that will not happen with Federer. I stick by my opinion. He will be out by the end of 2012 or 2013 if he continues to win no slams and his ranking drops, etc. Let's see if I am right, ok?

cc0509
08-25-2011, 09:12 PM
I agree- Federer is and SHOULD be concerned about his legacy... when you're considered one of the top 5 players of all time, you should be concerned about how history viewed your career, beginning to end... All the greats acknowledge that... Magic, Bird, Jordan, Elway, Manning, Brady, Sampras, Lendl, Gretzky, Messier, etc.. the list goes on and on.

Of course! That is what makes a great champion in the first place.

NadalAgassi
08-25-2011, 09:17 PM
I know Federer's legacy can only be added to, not reduced. Duh!


Actually in some cases it can be reduced, atleast in some peoples view. Evert would probably be viewed better if she retired at 28 as a 14 slam winner, with all time records for consistency, who missed out on many more French and Aussie titles in the 70s due to not playing, then the women who got dominated by Navratilova when it was Navratilova peaking and Evert a bit past her prime. Connors often has it brought up that he has a losing head to head with all of Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl, when he could have retired after 1983 having won all 8 of his slams and all his other success, and have owned Lendl and more than held his own with McEnroe. Seles probably continued his relatively mediocre post stabbing career a bit longer than she should have, and alot of peoples memory of her is her being owned for years by the new big babes of tennis who had improved on her own power game. Even Agassi is remembered by some people for losing 8 matches in a row to Federer, despite that he was in his mid 30s and playing with a bad back. Agassi's last slam was the 2003 Australian and after the 2003 season completed it was pretty clear that was going to be the case, he had already cemented his longevity and amazing comeback to greatness, so was it worth playing another 3 years just to get owned by the much younger Federer and Nadal, injure himself further, and have almost no success winning tournaments.

Another reason it would be wise for Federer to retire soon.

devila
08-25-2011, 10:33 PM
just because roddick isn't lusting for defeats at federer's tournaments, and cheering for federer's greatest player designation doesn't mean everyone should feel shocked about federer failing.

cc0509
08-26-2011, 08:08 PM
Actually in some cases it can be reduced, atleast in some peoples view. Evert would probably be viewed better if she retired at 28 as a 14 slam winner, with all time records for consistency, who missed out on many more French and Aussie titles in the 70s due to not playing, then the women who got dominated by Navratilova when it was Navratilova peaking and Evert a bit past her prime. Connors often has it brought up that he has a losing head to head with all of Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl, when he could have retired after 1983 having won all 8 of his slams and all his other success, and have owned Lendl and more than held his own with McEnroe. Seles probably continued his relatively mediocre post stabbing career a bit longer than she should have, and alot of peoples memory of her is her being owned for years by the new big babes of tennis who had improved on her own power game. Even Agassi is remembered by some people for losing 8 matches in a row to Federer, despite that he was in his mid 30s and playing with a bad back. Agassi's last slam was the 2003 Australian and after the 2003 season completed it was pretty clear that was going to be the case, he had already cemented his longevity and amazing comeback to greatness, so was it worth playing another 3 years just to get owned by the much younger Federer and Nadal, injure himself further, and have almost no success winning tournaments.

Another reason it would be wise for Federer to retire soon.

Nah, I don't agree that somebody's legacy can be reduced. The h2h thing means nothing to me when a player has a career filled with achievements like Federer, Evert or whomever.

The only thing with respect to Federer is he has to ultimately reach a point where he really does not believe he can win another slam. Whether he in fact believes that himself currently only he knows. Surely you would think that a champion like Federer does not want to stay on the punishing tour with a family in tow if he thinks he can't win big tournaments. I mean, what is the point? So to me, if and when he truly feels he can't win big any longer he will quit. That is my view.

NadalAgassi
08-26-2011, 08:14 PM
Nah, I don't agree that somebody's legacy can be reduced. The h2h thing means nothing to me when a player has a career filled with achievements like Federer, Evert or whomever.

The only thing with respect to Federer is he has to ultimately reach a point where he really does not believe he can win another slam. Whether he in fact believes that himself currently only he knows. Surely you would think that a champion like Federer does not want to stay on the punishing tour with a family in tow if he thinks he can't win big tournaments. I mean, what is the point? So to me, if and when he truly feels he can't win big any longer he will quit. That is my view.

While you might be right on Federer I can ensure you Evert is reduced in peoples eyes due to her head to head with Navratilova. IMO unfairly so. Maybe she isnt to you, but to alot of people she is. Of course she is still hugely respected as one of the best ever but if she even comes up in a GOAT debate the prevailing consensus is "no way can Evert be the best ever, look at how Martina at her best crushed her". Many believe Martina is far and away the better player despite that their head to head is only 43-37 for Martina, and both won 18 slams. Some even bring up how she owned by Steffi Graf, despite that she was 31-34 years old by then.

My main point is if you continue too long, or if you can continue and post poor results against certain players or in general for your very high standards (in cases like Evert it wasnt even much to do with her but Martina being so strong) you can slightly diminish your own legacy to some people. That probably wont happen to Federer but it doesnt mean it isnt a risk.

cc0509
08-26-2011, 08:39 PM
While you might be right on Federer I can ensure you Evert is reduced in peoples eyes due to her head to head with Navratilova. IMO unfairly so. Maybe she isnt to you, but to alot of people she is. Of course she is still hugely respected as one of the best ever but if she even comes up in a GOAT debate the prevailing consensus is "no way can Evert be the best ever, look at how Martina at her best crushed her". Many believe Martina is far and away the better player despite that their head to head is only 43-37 for Martina, and both won 18 slams. Some even bring up how she owned by Steffi Graf, despite that she was 31-34 years old by then.

My main point is if you continue too long, or if you can continue and post poor results against certain players or in general for your very high standards (in cases like Evert it wasnt even much to do with her but Martina being so strong) you can slightly diminish your own legacy to some people. That probably wont happen to Federer but it doesnt mean it isnt a risk.

What many people may think is not my concern. To me Evert for example is and always will be "one" of the best regardless of her h2h with Navratilova. She has 18 slams for god's sake! The whole GOAT thing is silly IMO. Navratilova is one of the greatest and so is Evert. Nothing Evert did or did not do can change that IMO. If other people wish to think differently that is their right. Same for any other of the greats--i.e. whatever they have achieved overall will stand. You can't take away titles or records. I do understand the argument people make about diminishing one's legacy if one continues to play longer but I don't agree with it.

devila
08-27-2011, 11:36 AM
federer and his fawning fanboys cried because they couldn't accept that he WAS WORSE THAN HIS IMAGE and that was a result of the decade filled with butt kissers who weren't willing to work harder to beat him.

Polaris
08-27-2011, 11:53 AM
federer and his fawning fanboys cried because they couldn't accept that he WAS WORSE THAN HIS IMAGE and that was a result of the decade filled with butt kissers who weren't willing to work harder to beat him.

Hey! Drumroll for devila! The I-hate-Federer-just-coz dude is back ! :)