Would Fed's Legacy Be Better if He had Retired after Wimbledon 2012?

Nadalgaenger

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I actually came out the day he won Wimbledon 2012 and said that Fed should retire on a high. I sensed then, perhaps like many of you, that he had captured lightning in a bottle that tournament and should quit while he was ahead.

Now I am a huge fan of Fed (my nickname has nothing to do with my allegiances, despite the accusations that I am some Machiavellian troll), and I would have missed out on some exciting victories post 2012, most notably a couple of beatdowns of Djokovic in Cincy and exciting GS runs in 2014-15.

BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow. He hasn't really stopped his main rivals from building their resumes. What is his record post Wimbledon 2012 in GS matches against Nadal and Djokovic? In GS matches, he has lost 5 straight to the two of them. He only managed to win more than a set in one of those encounters. He has gone 7-11 since Djokovic in all matches and is 1-5 against Nadal (that's a combined 8-16 against his two greatest rivals).

He has not won any major events, only a few Masters 1000 tourtnaments that do nothing for his resume. His continued pursuit of matches will only result in more beatdowns by Djokovic and maybe even Nadal as we move forward.

In a nutshell, Fed would have the benefit of the doubt argument had he retired in 2012. Now he won't ever be able to rely on that, and may suffer a painful decline in the years that follow. 2013 appeared to be that year but at least he has surprised us with some occasional brilliance in 2014-2015.
 
Last edited:
metsman

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Are you nuts? He won 3 real slams after 2012. THREE. That's as many Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal combined and all won after the age of 31. That alone is why he is GOAT.
 
Nadalgaenger

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Captain Grant said:
34 y.o. Fed's legacy whose results in the last 3 Slams were F-F-SF is increasing with every 29 y.o. Nadal's loss to the likes of Brown, Fognini and Verdasco.
Click to expand...
You're right. If Djokovic weren't around, he would definitely be adding to his legacy. But it is just painful seeing him lose EVERY slam to Djokovic.
 
Captain Grant

Captain Grant

Semi-Pro
Nadalgaenger said:
You're right. If Djokovic weren't around, he would definitely be adding to his legacy. But it is just painful seeing him lose EVERY slam to Djokovic.
Click to expand...
It's not painful if you know a thing or two about their biographies. Fed(just like Nadal) was the guy who wasn't sure to the last moment during his childhood if he should choose football or tennis while Djokovic knew that he would be tennis №1 since being like 3-4 y.o. Sometimes I think Djokovic may have been born on the tennis court.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
The answer is a NO, even though you have asked this question umpteen number of times.

The 'benefit of doubt' argument is not warranted and will not do justification to what Djokovic is doing this decade.

Also, it is clear that no one , I repeat no one except Djokovic would have prevented Fed from adding 3-4 majors. If Fed retired in 2012, it would have been like Sampras where everyone will think he squeezed the last ounce that he had in him.
 
D

Diehard

Semi-Pro
Nadalgaenger said:
I actually came out the day he won Wimbledon 2012 and said that Fed should retire on a high. I sensed then, perhaps like many of you, that he had captured lightning in a bottle that tournament and should quit while he was ahead.

Now I am a huge fan of Fed (my nickname has nothing to do with my allegiances, despite the accusations that I am some Machiavellian troll), and I would have missed out on some exciting victories post 2012, most notably a couple of beatdowns of Djokovic in Cincy and exciting GS runs in 2014-15.

BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow. He hasn't really stopped his main rivals from building their resumes. What is his record post Wimbledon 2012 in GS matches against Nadal and Djokovic? In GS matches, he has lost 5 straight to the two of them. He only managed to win more than a set in one of those encounters. He has gone 7-11 since Djokovic in all matches and is 1-5 against Nadal (that's a combined 8-16 against his two greatest rivals).

He has not won any major events, only a few Masters 1000 tourtnaments that do nothing for his resume. His continued pursuit of matches will only result in more beatdowns by Djokovic and maybe even Nadal as we move forward.

In a nutshell, Fed would have the benefit of the doubt argument had he retired in 2012. Now he won't ever be able to rely on that, and may suffer a painful decline in the years that follow. 2013 appeared to be that year but at least he has surprised us with some occasional brilliance in 2014-2015.
Click to expand...
Yes..definitely
 
metsman

metsman

G.O.A.T.
tennisaddict said:
The answer is a NO, even though you have asked this question umpteen number of times.

The 'benefit of doubt' argument is not warranted and will not do justification to what Djokovic is doing this decade.

Also, it is clear that no one , I repeat no one except Djokovic would have prevented Fed from adding 3-4 majors. If Fed retired in 2012, it would have been like Sampras where everyone will think he squeezed the last ounce that he had in him.
Click to expand...
lol not even close, nothing like Sampras....given the run of form Federer was on culminating in Wimby most people would have thought he had more slams left. The guy won 3 masters, WTF, Wimbledon, and like 9 titles in a span of like 9 months. And you know, he was also #1 in the world...
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
metsman said:
lol not even close, nothing like Sampras....given the run of form Federer was on culminating in Wimby most people would have thought he had more slams left. The guy won 3 masters, WTF, Wimbledon, and like 9 titles in a span of like 9 months. And you know, he was also #1 in the world...
Click to expand...

Agree. But the nay sayers would then quote history and point how few managed to win anything of substance post 31. You can never win.
 
ollinger

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Nadalgaenger wrote:
BUT, if Fed had retired, many on here would believe, erroneously as history has proven, that Fed would have won more GS titles in the years to follow

This unfortunate sentence seems to suggest Federer would have won more titles if he had retired.
 
D

drm025

Hall of Fame
If he does not win another slam in his career or the Olympic singles gold, then yes, I think his legacy would have been better had he retired after 2012 Wimbledon or possibly the end of the year, once he passed Sampras for weeks at #1. Since then, he's only won a few Masters tournaments when he isn't going to be leading that category anyway. He hasn't regained #1, won a slam, or increased his lead at the WTFs. The one thing he did was win Davis Cup, though the importance of that is argued. He's further proven his longevity and consistency, but he was already recognized for these anyway. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and there always would have been a curiosity about if he could have won more.
 
roger presley

roger presley

Hall of Fame
It's hard to say what was better option for Federer,retire or not. He ain't gonna win GS again,but still is practically best player after Djokovic. He is enjoying and we should be glad that he is,cause we're able to watch a little bit longer his great tennis. Even if he's not the best,he's best to watch by far.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
roger presley said:
It's hard to say what was better option for Federer,retire or not. He ain't gonna win GS again,but still is practically best player after Djokovic. He is enjoying and we should be glad that he is,cause we're able to watch a little bit longer his great tennis. Even if he's not the best,he's best to watch by far.
Click to expand...

He can definitely win Wimbledon again. He just needs to avoid Djokovic, which is possible.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
The ability to play top notch tennis at age 30 and beyond and stay in the top 2/top 3 is NOT comparable to achievements prior to age 30.

It not only means that you are beating age but also proves you are relevant even with the way the game is changing . It is a new dimension like nothing else.
 
West Coast Ace

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Captain Grant said:
It's not painful if you know a thing or two about their biographies. Fed(just like Nadal) was the guy who wasn't sure to the last moment during his childhood if he should choose football or tennis while Djokovic knew that he would be tennis №1 since being like 3-4 y.o. Sometimes I think Djokovic may have been born on the tennis court.
Click to expand...
Great post. Historians will say something like '.... while he never won another major, he competed in multiple finals, often pushing the eventual champion to 4 sets. Federer also returned to the #2 ranking in the world, one of the oldest to ever accomplish this. And in 2014, he and longtime friend, Stan Wawrinka, won the Davis Cup for SUI'

OP, house money. Sorry if the truth hurts. Back into your pathetic hole.
 
Sartorius

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Federer has won more than 10 titles since 2012. That's very good. Tennis is mostly about winning tournaments. Not everything is about slams alone. His Basel titles, for example, has probably made him very happy each time.

His slam results are also very good. This I guess is the main debate - whether by going on and giving other players chances to beat him makes his resume worse. This is nonsense. Today Federer probably cares about winning those titles and doesn't care if he loses in SF or 3rd round (he actually has said something like this recently btw, maybe in brisbane?). But even then, making these deep runs won't make his career worse (his trophies at least don't just disappear when he loses a big match); there's a reason why people talk about those 1,000th match win, 300th GS match wins and so forth. These things are exactly the growing resume of Federer that people think is diminishing because he naturally ends up losing matches along the way. And he's usually losing these matches to the very best partly because he's still that good to be there. That's something. Besides, his career is pretty much post-history and post-proof at this point (except for troll discussions).

He has played some great tennis all around except 2013, in fact better than all but the very best as per his ranking suggests. That's also very good. I for one appreciate it as a fan. Tennis is about winning tournaments but that's not exactly a bottom line.

Ultimately, he seems to be enjoying himself on the tour. It's his life. That probably trumps everything above.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
OP, Just look at the Novak fan base if you want an answer. Even though Fed is losing to Novak in majors, they will jump in joy if they know of Federer's retirement , as it would mean they don't have to explain Novak's losses to Old-erer in BO3 and also they don't have to constantly being subjected to the comparison in popularity / attractive game style, etc
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
No it would not.

The only reason this topic is being brought up is because Djokovic is beating him.

The media is hyping Djokovic up because he the "big thing" right now just like they did when Fed was and just like they did when Nadal was.

Personally I think its one of these:
  • Amazing that at 34 years old Roger is competing at the top of the game winning titles and making Grand Slam finals, He strengthens his own legacy showing that he is so good even at the age most tennis players have retired, he is still one of the top 3 tennis players in the world.
  • Sad that the tour is so weak that Roger can be ranked so high and be practically one of the only guys on tour capable of beating Djokovic. Shows you how weak this era is. Roger only has good stats because he dominated a weak era, yet in this era and at the ripe old age of 34 he is still #3 in the world, winning masters titles, and making grand slam finals.
Take your pick.

Of course the Djoker fans like to double negative themselves and claim Rogers stats are inflated due to weak era yet this is the strongest era ever and Djoker is just sooooooo dominant. Guess what, you look as good as your peers allow you to. AKA Djokovic is not losing because the other guys just are not that good.
 
Algo

Algo

Hall of Fame
Kinda following @Sartorius ' line of thought:
What exactly is a player's legacy?
Objective, undeniable achievements i.e titles? or what the fans will remember of that player i.e his/her "level"

If the former, he's only adding to it. If the latter, his legacy might not be as good as it'd be had he retired in 2012.
But it's the former.
 
Doflamingo

Doflamingo

Professional
tennisaddict said:
OP, Just look at the Novak fan base if you want an answer. Even though Fed is losing to Novak in majors, they will jump in joy if they know of Federer's retirement , as it would mean they don't have to explain Novak's losses to Old-erer in BO3 and also they don't have to constantly being subjected to the comparison in popularity / attractive game style, etc
Click to expand...

> We don't care when Federer retires or doesn't, all we care is about Novak, watching him play and his progress throughout his career.
> We don't care about popularity, Novak has his fanbase in the millions just as Federer/Nadal. It's stupid to make such comparisons to make someone one-up the other.
> Losses to prehistoric Fed, why would we shine away from that? Fed played better on the day, he was #2 in the world so it's expected he would beat Novak in a few tournaments here and there. For a Fed fan such as yourself you really underestimate your own player's abilities.

com-next.jpg


​
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Doflamingo said:
> We don't care when Federer retires or doesn't, all we care is about Novak, watching him play and his progress throughout his career.
> We don't care about popularity, Novak has his fanbase in the millions just as Federer/Nadal. It's stupid to make such comparisons to make someone one-up the other.
> Losses to prehistoric Fed, why would we shine away from that? Fed played better on the day, he was #2 in the world so it's expected he would beat Novak in a few tournaments here and there. For a Fed fan such as yourself you really underestimate your own player's abilities.

com-next.jpg


​
Click to expand...

I don't have the time or interest to quote posts that said 'wish Fed would go away' . You can look it up yourself . To start with you can ask @Djokovic2011
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
I would say so.. It spared him from this thorough domination by Djokovic (A GOAT should be able to figure it out regardless of opponent and get some wins back bottom line. I mean Fed has shown he can beat everyone else as the last 3 slams show). And I think he even lost indoors to Nadal.. Nadal!!!!!

Its better to go out with a bang instead of a whimper. Which is inevitable now hes going out with a whimper. . Its like Kobe. He should have retired back in 2011.

The thing with all time greats staying on, unless you BUILD on your resume, you aren't adding to your all time standing.

Other than money, Federer hasn't added anything on to his legacy by staying on since 2012. Winning some rinky dinker tournaments don't add to his legacy in any ways shape for form.

Its the same for Nole/Nadal now. Unless those two keep adding slams, who cares. Anything less than slams, they aren't adding to their GOAT standing


Winning a Doha, Cincy, Miami tournament isn't gonna help you solidify your GOAT standing. Sure those are good for journeymen but it doesn't do anything for all time greats.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
insideguy said:
I say no. I don t think conners hurt his legacy playing after his prime and i dont think anyone else does either.
Click to expand...
This.

As far as I'm concerned, Jimmy added to his legacy by doing that - and so has Federer.
 
NEW_BORN

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
Since Wimbledon 2012, Federer has achieved the following:
- Olympic silver medal in singles
- 1st ever Davis Cup for Switzerland
- surpassed 1000 wins on tour
- eclipsed 300 weeks at world number 1
- racked up 3 more slam finals, 3 more year end finals
- won 13 extra titles to take his tally to 88. including 4 masters1000 titles

So no, he's definitely not hurting his legacy
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
If anything, Federer improved his legacy in the previous two years by showing great longevity.
In general, I don't think a player can harm his own legacy. For example, Rafa declined a lot, in a short period and before reaching 30. He probably failed to live up to further expectations, but not once did he harm his legacy. What you achieved until now cannot be harmed by some disappointments in the future, because everyone eventually declines and retires.
 
F

FedTheMan

Professional
I am so glad Fed decided to keep on playing. I love watching him play and he is my favourite athlete of all time. In fact, he is even more inspiring as he gets older and still does so well. I love his brand of tennis and he is just so cool.

If Fed retired, I would support others but truthfully, Fed's tennis is tops for me.
 
M

mika1979

Professional
I think that his playing at his age has been one of the most impressive parts of his whole career. It's not like he's vulturing slams against crap players like agassi did. He would have won heaps had he not faced an all time great
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
drm025 said:
If he does not win another slam in his career or the Olympic singles gold, then yes, I think his legacy would have been better had he retired after 2012 Wimbledon or possibly the end of the year, once he passed Sampras for weeks at #1. Since then, he's only won a few Masters tournaments when he isn't going to be leading that category anyway. He hasn't regained #1, won a slam, or increased his lead at the WTFs. The one thing he did was win Davis Cup, though the importance of that is argued. He's further proven his longevity and consistency, but he was already recognized for these anyway. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and there always would have been a curiosity about if he could have won more.
Click to expand...


Exactly.
NEW_BORN said:
Since Wimbledon 2012, Federer has achieved the following:
- Olympic silver medal in singles
- 1st ever Davis Cup for Switzerland
- surpassed 1000 wins on tour
- eclipsed 300 weeks at world number 1
- racked up 3 more slam finals, 3 more year end finals
- won 13 extra titles to take his tally to 88. including 4 masters1000 titles

So no, he's definitely not hurting his legacy
Click to expand...

Outside of the weeks at #1, the rest are forgettable. There no points for 2nd place for an all time great. Finals appearances just mean you didn't win the title. You either win or you don't. . Really who remembers about winning masters titles?
 
NEW_BORN

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
90's Clay said:
Outside of the weeks at #1, the rest are forgettable. There no points for 2nd place for an all time great. Finals appearances just mean you didn't win the title. You either win or you don't. . Really who remembers about winning masters titles?
Click to expand...

They're all fine achievements nonetheless.
Even finals add to your legacy, but if you choose to only see the negative side of making it to a title fight, then so be it.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
90's Clay said:
Exactly.


Outside of the weeks at #1, the rest are forgettable. There no points for 2nd place for an all time great. Finals appearances just mean you didn't win the title. You either win or you don't. . Really who remembers about winning masters titles?
Click to expand...

If you agree he is aLready an ATG, isn't his legacy secure ? He is no longer an ATG because of recent losses to 1 player ? He becomes tier 2 ?
 
Gazelle

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
By keeping on playing Fed has strengthened his position against Nadal. The Spaniard was the only threat to his legacy and rival for GOAThood. Till 2014 some people were thinking Rafa to be greater than Fed or at least was close to usurping him. You barely hear talk like that nowadays, because Fed has now clearly outlived Nadal. It's hard to put Rafa above Fed when the Swiss is still making Wimby finals, while the Spaniard who's five years his junior, loses in the first round.
 
M

mattosgrant

Banned
Honestly the only drawback any could come up with his is that he will almost certainly now end up with a losing career head to head with Djokovic, and many slam final/WTF defeats, where if he retired in 2012 he would have ended with a winning record. However had he retired in 2012 he would have ended with still a very competitive H2H with Djokovic despite that Federer was much more prime than Djokovic (basically up until and including 2010) for more of their history. Now he will likely end with a still competitive H2H with Djokovic despite more of their encounters being in Djokovic's prime than Federer's. Djokovic deserves his wins, but it will be looked at a lot like the Lendl/Connors H2H, not a big deal in the end, and unlike Connors, old Federer still has some wins over prime Djokovic which again only bolsters his own legacy and is a positive. Either way their head to head would have been inconclusive, and only suggest either guy is very competitive with the other (whether Federer retires in 2012 or 2020) at any point in time, and purely come down to opinion on how prime to prime they would compare.

I don't see anything negative about outlasting the much longer Nadal, and still giving the current #1 who is also an all time great (Djokovic) real competition in his mid 30s. It is like saying Navratilova should have retired after Wimbledon 1990, and nobody would say that.
 
roundiesee

roundiesee

Hall of Fame
I think even if Roger's decision to continue playing has hurt his "legacy", the fact that he has added titles plus the Davis Cup to his resume is already enough reason to praise this decision. I think Roger loves playing tennis too much to care. As fans let us all try to enjoy these moments as much as we can and not be too critical of Roger :)
 
Harry_Wild

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
It all depends on how the others in the fields can equals or exceeds his accomplishments and also if he wins another GS before he retires is important too affects his legacy! From a financial standpoint he is still the number one tennis male in endorsement revenue that around $60 million plus! So if Federer is #3 in the world, their is only 2 players that are better; even if he falls to top 20; he will still be popular because of his legacy and age! Each year Federer on the tour is a big plus for him financially and for his legacy of length of playing time but it surprising that ATP tour players and WTA tour players are still dominant into the 30s where a repeat of the 1960s with Rod Laver and company and that of Margaret Court!
 
Last edited:
HewittAlwaysDisappoints

HewittAlwaysDisappoints

Professional
zep said:
He can definitely win Wimbledon again. He just needs to avoid Djokovic, which is possible.
Click to expand...
If you need to rely on someone to lose to win the title, that is called being lucky. Isn't knowing you beat the best to win the title more meaningful, than an upset of epic proportions so you get an easier path to the title? I'm looking at you RG 2009.
 
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
No it wouldn't. He's adding career match wins and some big finals. Not to mention if he wasn't handing Ultron slams, someone else would be.
 
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Ten Wimbledon finals. That's enough of a reason to keep playing for another four years and entertaining the crowds with creative shots.

HewittAlwaysDisappoints said:
If you need to rely on someone to lose to win the title, that is called being lucky. Isn't knowing you beat the best to win the title more meaningful, than an upset of epic proportions so you get an easier path to the title? I'm looking at you RG 2009.
Click to expand...

Fed won Roland Garros by consistently being the second best clay courter for almost a decade. No luck was involved unless you use tunnel vision to zoom in on 2009 only.
 
HewittAlwaysDisappoints

HewittAlwaysDisappoints

Professional
ledwix said:
Ten Wimbledon finals. That's enough of a reason to keep playing for another four years and entertaining the crowds with creative shots.



Fed won Roland Garros by consistently being the second best clay courter for almost a decade. No luck was involved unless you use tunnel vision to zoom in on 2009 only.
Click to expand...
and he should be reward the title for being second best should he?

If Soderling did not beat Nadal, you think something different would have happened than all the other previous years? Federer would have beat Nadal if both made it to the final? No way in hell.
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Yes and no. Obviously with Nole now going in the lead in H2H, it's going to provide more fodder to the Fed = weak era fraud detractors. Wimbledon 2012 was a perfect counter to that argument, beating Nole and Murray in back to back matches. Had he quit then, it would have been difficult to argue the weak era.

On the other hand, there is already daylight between Nole and the rest of the field. So without Fed to challenge him, it would be even easier for him to get to 17. If he doesn't get there, the additional mileage from those hard fought wins over an ageing Fed would have something to do with it. So, in a counter intuitive way, Fed is actually protecting his legacy by making Nole fight tooth and nail for the GOAT status. Maybe that tactic has exhausted its limits now, because this latest win was rather easy for Nole barring the one set Fed stole away. But it's probably still been worth it. If Nole does become the GOAT, the 34 year old Fed argument will not hold up in public perception. But if he doesn't, then these very matches will be held up as an example of Fed's longevity and resilience, kind of like Agassi's losses to Fed at USO 2004 and 2005. Nobody today says Fed 'blew away' Agassi or uses those results to speculate on how a prime to prime clash would have unfolded. Those results on the other hand are used to showcase Agassi's longevity even in the face of injuries.
 
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
HewittAlwaysDisappoints said:
and he should be reward the title for being second best should he?
Click to expand...

No, he should have been rewarded the title for winning seven best-of-five matches, as these tournaments require. There is nothing shocking about it in aggregate when one of the best players on a surface for several years wins a slam on that surface.

If Soderling did not beat Nadal, you think something different would have happened than all the other previous years? Federer would have beat Nadal if both made it to the final? No way in hell.
Click to expand...

Soderling *did* beat Nadal. You act as though Nadal is entitled to every slam final, and that if he fails, it counts against somebody else. These scenarios are irrelevant to whether a player wins a title, and in fact could be constructed in such a way to make every champion seem lucky if naysayers desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AgassiSuperSlam11
  • Poll
Should Federer have retired years before or still keep playing?
Replies
42
Views
1K
mtommer
mtommer
J
Federer would have the slam record if he retired in 2012
Replies
35
Views
2K
daddy
daddy
M
If Federer had retired at end of 2013, there would be no 5 Set Grand Slam Final since 2012 US Open
Replies
1
Views
138
AceSalvo
AceSalvo
T
If Federer's Wimbledon 2015 form swapped between semi's and finals - would he have won?
Replies
34
Views
991
Slice'n'dice
Slice'n'dice
Nadalgaenger
  • Poll
If we take out 2017, has Fed truly helped his legacy si…
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
Daniel Andrade
D
Top