Should Federer have retired years before or still keep playing?

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Federer after winning his 7th Wimbledon in 2012 could've retired with his 17th slam and left on top. Three years later, at the age of 34 he didn't win another slam and lost two GS Finals that year to Novak, but still had a 22-22 h2h and defeated Nadal in his last match against him which could've been another chance to retire. The year 2019 saw Federer with 20 slams and he defeat his two main rivals in his last match against them (Nadal Wimbledon, Novak ATP RR) and he never won another ATP title since. Did Fed blow a good opportunity to retire; or should he keep playing to break Connors 109 ATP titles (Fed has 103)?

 

[DjokoLand]

Federer after winning his 8th Wimbledon in 2012 could've retired with his 17th slam and left on top. Three years later, at the age of 34 he didn't win another slam and lost two GS Finals that year to Novak, but still had a 22-22 h2h and defeated Nadal in his last match against him which could've been another chance to retire. The year 2019 saw Federer with 20 slams and he defeat his two main rivals in his last match against them (Nadal Wimbledon, Novak ATP RR) and he never won another ATP title since. Did Fed blow a good opportunity to retire; or should he keep playing to break Connors 109 ATP titles (Fed has 103)?

Federer was still amazing after 2012 so why even consider it. He won AO17/18 and W17 when Djokovic went awol and the reason why is ? Because he was better than anyone not named Djokovic.

Federer 14/15/16 was stopped by Djokovic and the fact that his 2 best slams (W and AO) where also Djokovic best is unfortunate. Federer won 3 slams with Djokovic awol in 2017/2018 because he was simply better than the rest and if not for Djokovic 2014-2018 would of been his most successful periods bar 04-07.

Obviously W19 hurt as it was the perfect time to retire by beating a co goat at his age but overall Fed should of never retired before now as he was still better than all at 2 slams that were not named Djokovic

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Silly thread as silly comes. El oh el.

 

[BeatlesFan]

He won three slams after age 35 and became the oldest #1 player at age 37, but some folks really, really have no clue. This thread is up there with the lamest ever, and that's saying quite something.

 

[bullfan]

jeeze, it was up Fed. Stupid thread

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Wow seeing some pathetic people with this "You are ignoring content by this member" showing up I wonder why ?

 

[Standaa]

Federer should never retire. Only death is as an excuse.

 

[Subway Tennis]

He was definitely right to keep going. 2017 would have been one of the most satisfying seasons of his career by a long way.

Even 2019 he played brilliantly but just had no luck. Fed went even higher in my opinion based on what he did at that year's Wimbledon and I'm sure the case is similar for many other people.

You could argue that 2020/2021 were no good but obviously they were circumstances beyond his control.

I think the player who timed their retirement most perfectly was Sharapova, quietly dipping out right before the pandemic.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

I remind the highly esteemed "Bionic Posters" and "GOAT" posters that Bjorn Borg retired at 25 while he was the defending French Open champion and beside McEnroe no player could solve him. However, after losing 3 straight GS finals to McEnroe he retired (and yes made a few returns). After Federer lost to Novak in the 2015 USO it was his 3rd consecutive GS loss to Novak. In addition, he had gone 3 consecutive years without a slam so without the help of "hindsight" nobody could know he would win 3 more slams.

 

[Kralingen]

Yes I think it’s clear that he should have quit playing the sport he loves, passing up on 3 Slams, numerous records, the oldest world #1, and hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Curtennis]

He should keep playing as long as he wants to and is getting paid to do so.

 

[Federev]

I get the instinct to ask this as a fan. I’ve wondered the same thing.

But I think the presumption of the question is that this question is best answered not by the athlete themself, but by other people’s perception of them (I.e., records v. peers and public esteem); and that what other people think of the person matters most rather than what the person thinks.

I think that is an incorrect presumption.

Therefore, I think the question itself - and the options offered are not really answerable except to say:

“None of the above”.

The best answer on retirement for any professional athlete (who has the choice) is that they should retire when they feel either lack of enjoyment or lack of productivity reach unsatisfactory levels and they just don’t want to continue.

I think as long as Fed, or Rafa, or Novak still want to play and can play- they should keep playing.

For Federer, I’m convinced after hearing coaches and friends and commentators say again and again that they’ve never met anyone who loves the game and the culture of the game - the tours and travels - as much as Fed, that this is true.

I think his longevity and his strong desire to come back after bad injuries and inspite of the fact that his greatest records are gone and very likely unrecoverable, bears this out,

He clearly loves tennis and as long as he wants to compete, I say he should.

It’s his life, not the public’s.

 

[Jonesy]

He should at least go for the wins record, he is so close.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Yes I think it’s clear that he should have quit playing the sport he loves, passing up on 3 Slams, numerous records, the oldest world #1, and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Do you think Serena and Fed need to keep playing to make millions? Do you think his deal with endorsements and sponsors are contingent upon him playing? Fed and Serena with their corporate sponsors can rake millions without playing (unless there is a contractual stipulation that requires them to play to keep the endorsement deal).

They also have kids and sometimes people are willing to leave a sport to spend more time with their family even if it's passing on "records and money."

 

[Kralingen]

Do you think Serena and Fed need to keep playing to make millions? Do you think his deal with endorsements and sponsors are contingent upon him playing? Fed and Serena with their corporate sponsors can rake millions without playing (unless there is a contractual stipulation that requires them to play to keep the endorsement deal).

Not at all.

They don’t need to do a single thing, for the entire rest of their lives. They have more than any human could ever dream of, and their children, their children’s children, and their children’s children’s children could live in the utmost luxury without hardly making a dent in their net worth.

They compete simply because they want to.

Really, that should answer the original post for you.

 

[Sudacafan]

Almost everybody thinks he would have retired if his records were not being disputed by Djokodal, especially the slam record.
He had no choice to keep on playing.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Not at all.

They don’t need to do a single thing, for the entire rest of their lives. They have more than any human could ever dream of, and their children, their children’s children, and their children’s children’s children could live in the utmost luxury without hardly making a dent in their net worth.

They compete simply because they want to.

Really, that should answer the original post for you.

At the end of 2015 Fed still had decent knees and then in 2016 he suffered a torn meniscus which he fully recovered and then years later he required more surgeries. He has had 3 surgeries on his right knee. He also has a family as Serena. Serena lost her last 4 GS finals and has only 1 minor title in her last 5 years. When you consider their family and health considerations it isn't exactly incendiary to raise the retirement question for these great athletes. Afterall, this is a discussion forum and we have seen plenty of insidious and diatribe threads that are much better received and condoned by the illustrious membership of this board.

 

[WarrenMP]

I flip flop on this question. Should someone retire at their prime? Where I stand now is if you can still play, then play. No Fed should have continued playing.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Players should retire when they themselves are good and ready. It's nobody else's God damn business.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Federer after winning his 8th Wimbledon in 2012 could've retired with his 17th slam and left on top. Three years later, at the age of 34 he didn't win another slam and lost two GS Finals that year to Novak, but still had a 22-22 h2h and defeated Nadal in his last match against him which could've been another chance to retire. The year 2019 saw Federer with 20 slams and he defeat his two main rivals in his last match against them (Nadal Wimbledon, Novak ATP RR) and he never won another ATP title since. Did Fed blow a good opportunity to retire; or should he keep playing to break Connors 109 ATP titles (Fed has 103)?

Win WB19 with an ace and announce retirement right there.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Athletes should retire when they are good and ready,...so Dr. Ferdie Pacheco was wrong to tell Ali to retire in the late 1970's before the Holmes and Berbick beatdowns? The extra damage was okay I guess ?

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Win WB19 with an ace and announce retirement right there.

Most definitely that likely would've happened. However, he kept playing and reaggravated his knee and had 3 surgeries in 18 months but "athletes should retire when they are good and ready."

 

[bullfan]

Wow seeing some pathetic people with this "You are ignoring content by this member" showing up I wonder why ?

Wow…. Why would a new poster have this point of view unless they’ve been banned before? Somehow, I wouldn’t be surprised if you weren’t a previously banned poster. If not, your offense, is offensive.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Wow…. Why would a new poster have this point of view unless they’ve been banned before? Somehow, I wouldn’t be surprised if you weren’t a previously banned poster. If not, your offense, is offensive.

Perhaps you were banned buddy, the admin took 2 days before allowing me to post. Never posted on TTW until recently and don't have Twitter, FB, or YT accounts. However, you are free to contact the Admin and let them check if I ever posted on TTW until they did their 48-hour check on me. I don't expect any apology from you but at minimum expect you from ceasing making these false allegations.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Almost everybody thinks he would have retired if his records were not being disputed by Djokodal, especially the slam record.
He had no choice to keep on playing.

So do you think if Roger wasnt being pushed he might have retired in 2012?

It's a very interesting perspective on it.

The fact that Roger kept fighting and got that January 2017 to mid 2018 period is so impressive to me.

Even his run in 2012 deserves respect given that it came after 2011, a season where he played brilliantly without luck. He just kept bouncing back.

 

[Sir Weed]

Should OP have retired from creating threads years ago?

 

[WYK]

He retired in 2019. He just never made an announcement. At best, he will do a short 'victory' lap end of 2022, early 2023.

 

[junior74]

He is quietly evolving

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[BVSlam]

He should have retired after 2007, then he would have retired after solely enjoying PEAKINESS. There would be songs about his potential 30+ slams had he not retired (especially after now seeing Nadal and Djokovic winning many slams past 30) and would win many GOAT/What If? polls on TTW for the rest of TTW's life. Sure, no RG, but he would hypothetically win a couple anyway after bagelling Nadal at Hamburg and getting a whopping 17 break points in their last RG final! What would have happened if Fed actually cared on those points? Nadal would be crying while eating the bread he was served!

But noooo, he had to keep playing and look what happened. Losing GOAT polls left and right here on TTW.

 

[mtommer]

Did Fed blow a good opportunity to retire; or should he keep playing to break Connors 109 ATP titles?

Shouldn't Roger be the one to care the most about his legacy and when to stop? Suppose that when he comes back he never wins another match. And?

 

[Hitman]

Federer after winning his 8th Wimbledon in 2012 could've retired with his 17th slam and left on top. Three years later, at the age of 34 he didn't win another slam and lost two GS Finals that year to Novak, but still had a 22-22 h2h and defeated Nadal in his last match against him which could've been another chance to retire. The year 2019 saw Federer with 20 slams and he defeat his two main rivals in his last match against them (Nadal Wimbledon, Novak ATP RR) and he never won another ATP title since. Did Fed blow a good opportunity to retire; or should he keep playing to break Connors 109 ATP titles (Fed has 103)?

Well you got this wrong. Federer only tied Sampras with 7 in 2012....he broke the record to become the all time record holder at Wimbledon in 2017. Something that would have happened if he had left in 2012.

 

[Oceans II]

Certainly not with the high level of tennis he displayed at AO20 especially the 1st set of the SF.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

Should have won 2019 Wimbledon and retire with a fabulous #21 in hand.

 

[TheNachoMan]

He should’ve retired after WTF 2007, then he would be like Borg on steroids. The ultimate peak hypothetical GOAT.

 

[ChrisRF]

As I said so often, what could ever be gained by retiring? The only thing where one could say a player should have retired earlier is when he/she gets injured in a way that affects the life after tennis.

Everything else is just either totally irrelevant or worse. Because it's all about total numbers in the end. So if you compete, you CAN lose, but if you shy away from further competition, you already have lost.

"Retiring on top" is the dumbest possible move anyone could do, because it almost guarantees that otherwise further success would have come.

And the "retiring to preserve legacy" canard is just the same, because any sane person understands what happens with age, and that some late-career losses and worse pecentage statistics cannot reduce any legacy in the eyes of sane persons.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Shouldn't Roger be the one to care the most about his legacy and when to stop? Suppose that when he comes back he never wins another match. And?

People who have unsuccessful cervical and lumbar surgeries often are reduced to getting discectomy to remove damaged discs. When it comes to the knee the cartilage might be so damaged that you may need multiple meniscectomies or microfracture knee surgeries. Bottom line is that you walk on your legs and need your knees. He may never win another match but also injure his knees again. That is what happened in Wimbledon 2021 and this was stated by his medical team. Never been a Fed hater just stating the health consideration while he prolongs his career. I don't think he should've retired in 2012 or 2015, but think it should've been considered after 2019 ATP finals when he lost to Thiem.

This is forum of open discussion that has included threads about Nadal and Iwa having extramarital affairs which I think is even more offensive to these players. There are certified Tennis journalists that didn't even know that Soderling defeated Nadal and that Nadal had been in multiple AO Finals since 2009. Moreover, Ben asked personal and silly questions to both Emma and Nick Kyrgios which are cringeworthy. If it makes people feel better the mods will likely delete this thread looking at the turn it took.

 

[Subway Tennis]

People who have unsuccessful cervical and lumbar surgeries often are reduced to getting discectomy to remove damaged discs. When it comes to the knee the cartilage might be so damaged that you may need multiple meniscectomies or microfracture knee surgeries. Bottom line is that you walk on your legs and need your knees. He may never win another match but also injure his knees again. That is what happened in Wimbledon 2021 and this was stated by his medical team. Never been a Fed hater just stating the health consideration while he prolongs his career. I don't think he should've retired in 2012 or 2015, but think it should've been considered after 2019 ATP finals when he lost to Thiem.

This is forum of open discussion that has included threads about Nadal and Iwa having extramarital affairs which I think is even more offensive to these players. There are certified Tennis journalists that didn't even know that Soderling defeated Nadal and that Nadal had been in multiple AO Finals since 2009. Moreover, Ben asked personal and silly questions to both Emma and Nick Kyrgios which are cringeworthy. If it makes people feel better the mods will likely delete this thread looking at the turn it took.

I dont think the mods will delete this thread. Its an interesting discussion and there was nothing wrong with your original OP imo.

 

[mike danny]

And not solve the Nadal puzzle in the end? No way.

 

[sliceroni]

Nobody wants to retire due to injury. Plus 2017 was gift for majority of the tennis world, sports fans, casual sports fans, non sports fans.

 

[Rattie]

Players should retire when they want to if possible. So no Federer shouldn’t have retired before now. It’s his life no one else’s.

 

[T007]

Federer was still amazing after 2012 so why even consider it. He won AO17/18 and W17 when Djokovic went awol and the reason why is ? Because he was better than anyone not named Djokovic.

Federer 14/15/16 was stopped by Djokovic and the fact that his 2 best slams (W and AO) where also Djokovic best is unfortunate. Federer won 3 slams with Djokovic awol in 2017/2018 because he was simply better than the rest and if not for Djokovic 2014-2018 would of been his most successful periods bar 04-07.

Obviously W19 hurt as it was the perfect time to retire by beating a co goat at his age but overall Fed should of never retired before now as he was still better than all at 2 slams that were not named Djokovic

He could have beaten djokovic too in 2017 awool

 

[mtommer]

... Bottom line is that you walk on your legs and need your knees. He may never win another match but also injure his knees again. That is what happened in Wimbledon 2021 and this was stated by his medical team.

Aaaannd he still wants to keep playing. If he becomes a young invalid, while I wouldn't wish that upon him, why should I or any other TW poster care?

This is forum of open discussion that has included threads about Nadal and Iwa having extramarital affairs which I think is even more offensive to these players. There are certified Tennis journalists...

For one, by no means do I wish this thread to be deleted. Yes, it is open discussion, sure, but even regarding this topic you mention...I don't get why people care? If they had affairs, so what? I suppose I've been around enough higher level athletes to understand they are hardly role models of morailty. Good lord, many, many are faaarrr from it. As for the journalists, they're often paid to go after "juicy". Them, I get. I don't really like it, but I get it.