‘I don't think I need the tennis’ – Roger Federer looks to life after sport after missing Wimbledon

Waves

Semi-Pro
Fed, you had a great run! Enjoy the rest of your journey outside of the pro tennis world. You gave tennis fans a lot of entertainment! Stay healthy, stay happy and give ‘er!
 
S

Slicehand

Guest
Last paragraph:
“However, it appears unlikely that Federer will reach the stratospheric heights from the early stages of his career.”
That was a sharp reporter over there, you can tell when people have studies
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Negative.
They are in shock. And will be in shock.
You cannot easily rebuild your imaginations if your expectations were extremely high, but the reality has ruined it in so relentless way.

Fedbase was expecting him to remain the first in the race forever.
That's the problem number 1.

Millions of comments from the 2008-2020 period are the proof.
And it's in the internet easily available in the archives. Hard to deny it, hard to hide it.
That's the problem number 2.

And the last but not least: it's not only Nadal (instrumentally nowadays so-called a friend of Roger) who rose above Federer.
It's Djokovic as well.
That's the problem number 3.

Well...those people are stupid. Fed has been second banana since 2008 and third wheel since 2011.
 

initialize

Hall of Fame
His weak one-handed backhand is the reason he couldn't make it to the level of Djokovic and Nadal.
Maybe at first but he obviously corrected it as evidenced by his dominance over Nadal after 2014. Of course the correction came a little late though.. if he did it sooner Nadal could theoretically have no slams outside of Roland Garros
 
S

Slicehand

Guest
His weak one-handed backhand is the reason he couldn't make it to the level of Djokovic and Nadal.
He used a 90 sq inch frame for most of his career, what happened when he switch to a 97? Neo backhand, hitting winner from wverywhere with that thing, federers backhand is one of the sport most precious things, including his slice there
 
H

Herald

Guest
Federer was caught in the transition between the classical style of play derived from the woodie and gut days and the modern topspin game derived from bigger graphite rackets and polys. He tried his best to adjust by moving from a 90 to a 97 but he still could not keep up with the modern game. He was basically the victim of technology changes.

Having said that, I have modeled my game after him due to reasons of injury prevention.
He was anything but a victim of the transition. He was its greatest beneficiary.
 
He was anything but a victim of the transition. He was its greatest beneficiary.
Correct. This is a guy who never got past the first round at Wimbledon on the fast grass. The change of surface and homogenization played right into Federer's hands. It was always inevitable someone else would arrive who would take the game to the next level. It was unlucky for Roger that two arrived!
 
H

Herald

Guest
Correct. This is a guy who never got past the first round at Wimbledon on the fast grass. The change of surface and homogenization played right into Federer's hands. It was always inevitable someone else would arrive who would take the game to the next level. It was unlucky for Roger that two arrived!
The fairy tale had to end at some point. Don't cry because it's over, smile that it happened.

He can always be proud of his accomplishments, and his seat at the ATG table.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

Slicehand

Guest
Correct. This is a guy who never got past the first round at Wimbledon on the fast grass. The change of surface and homogenization played right into Federer's hands. It was always inevitable someone else would arrive who would take the game to the next level. It was unlucky for Roger that two arrived!
Uh? He beat sampras on the fast grass in 2001, what are you talking about? Before that he was 18, and very little experience on grass
 
H

Herald

Guest
His weak one-handed backhand is the reason he couldn't make it to the level of Djokovic and Nadal.
His weak noggin is probably the biggest reason. His serve and forehand mostly covered up his deficiency on that side.
 
S

Slicehand

Guest
The grass was slow in 2001. They changed it in time for the tournament.
He also won wimbledon juniors in 1998, to say that he wasnt a good grass player because he didnt pass first round with 17 and 18 years old is absurd, specially taking in account that he developed later than most tennis atgs, and in 2001 everyone was playing serve and volley at wimbledon, it was fast, and nothing like today
 
H

Herald

Guest
He also won wimbledon juniors in 1998, to say that he wasnt a good grass player because he didnt pass first round with 17 and 18 years old is absurd, specially taking in account that he developed later than most tennis atgs, and in 2001 everyone was playing serve and volley at wimbledon, it was fast, and nothing like today
They changed the grass in time for the tournament. NY Times and Wimbledon itself confirm.
Winning juniors isn't the same as the big leagues. His playing style isn't conducive to the fast grass where his rhythm would be constantly disrupted and his poor clutch against equals would see him bounced. It was near perfect for the slow grass. Then along came Nole...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crimson87

Semi-Pro
Correct. This is a guy who never got past the first round at Wimbledon on the fast grass. The change of surface and homogenization played right into Federer's hands. It was always inevitable someone else would arrive who would take the game to the next level. It was unlucky for Roger that two arrived!

Let's assume what you say is true and RF benefited. Wouldn't that help Djokovic and specially Nadal even more? Nadal and Djokovic are the true beneficiaries of the homogenized era. The last true great clay courter Nadal faced was Coria in 2005 ffs... on a fast us open surface he was wrecked by the likes of youzny, Gilles muller and Blake...

Tell me how no carpet courts on the tour since the late 00s helped RF... or how a slow as molasses WB grass with ridiculously high bounce allowing long rallies played to his strenghts during the 10s...
 
S

Slicehand

Guest
They changed the grass in time for the tournament. NY Times and Wimbledon itself confirm.
Winning juniors isn't the same as the big leagues. His playing style isn't conducive to the fast grass where his rhythm would be constantly disrupted and his poor clutch against equals would see him bounced. It was perfect for the slow grass. Unfortunately, along came Nole...
Nole won against an old fed that was playing good, last year of semi young federer playing his game was 2012, and that year federer did some amazing things with a 90 sq inch racquet) i agree he was the one to take full advantage of the new technology to create more spin, in fact, he was one of the players puting more rpms on the ball before nadal came along, but he was always all court and a much more traditional style for grass, when he beat sampras ( it was not sampras peak, but he was 30, so not crazy past his peak) he beat him at his own game, all match was serve and volleying, he atacked him, he wasnt deffending on grass
 
H

Herald

Guest
Nole won against an old fed that was playing good, last year of semi young federer playing his game was 2012, and that year federer did some amazing things with a 90 sq inch racquet) i agree he was the one to take full advantage of the new technology to create more spin, in fact, he was one of the players puting more rpms on the ball before nadal came along, but he was always all court and a much more traditional style for grass, when he beat sampras ( it was not sampras peak, but he was 30, so not crazy past his peak) he beat him at his own game, all match was serve and volleying, he atacked him, he wasnt deffending on grass
I appreciate your perspective although I disagree.
 
S

Slicehand

Guest
I appreciate your perspective although I disagree.
With what exactly? Because most of the things i said were facts, you cant disagree with facts, maybe you think that beating a 34 years old that never took care of his body like djokovic and never moved so good again after he made 30, is so significant
 

Marco Rotim

Semi-Pro
Because I don't think a guy who is third in his own era can be Top 5 all time. That would be absurd. There have been a hell of a lot of great champions in the 145 year history of tennis. Big 3 supporters insult the game when they assume their favorites are automatically among the three best players ever.

Why not @Spencer Gore ?
Of course someone who is 3rd today is better than Laver/Rosewall/Perry/Pancho etc etc
Modern day athletes are all better due to evolution.

It is like saying Carl Lewis was the GOAT of 100M sprinting in the late 1980s and early 1990s but sprinters like Bolt, Gay, Blake, Gatlin, Powell, Coleman, Maurice Greene are/were all faster, so they are all better.

Here are a list of sprinters who are quicker than Carl Lewis ever was, being the GOAT 30-35 years ago assured you of nothing !

291907795_2927682177378260_4345736844236609695_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
H

Herald

Guest
Just wait for TTWers to trash his achievements in the coming years like they've done to Sampras.
Well see, that's why what comes around goes around. Had they been more respectful to him, and the past greats of the game, then they'd receive far less of this.
 
H

Herald

Guest
But you didn't even say top 5.
How can a man barely in the top 5 of his own time be in the top 5 of all time?

In the Open Era that hallowed ground is host to Era Kings like Laver, Borg, Pete, Nole or Rafa. Since he hasn't officially retired, Roger could still be considered as competing for second place alongside greats like Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe. If he ends as third, then he's part of the Edberg, Becker, Wilander, and Courier pack, and I think it's safe to assume he would lead this pack.

No matter how you slice it, Roger will always be part of the game's history, and greats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vex

Legend
An interesting interview with Roger which seems to suggest that Roger is adopting a different viewpoint about the role of tennis in his life going forward:


Honestly, unless he just is bored with tennis - which I don’t think he is - I don’t understand why he doesn’t play another 6-7 in doubles and try to rack some doubles slams…
 

intrepidish

Hall of Fame
Honestly, unless he just is bored with tennis - which I don’t think he is - I don’t understand why he doesn’t play another 6-7 in doubles and try to rack some doubles slams…

He has played for a long time and his knees may well be a problem. In any case, the returns are surely diminishing such that it may be that he sees it that way himself at this point.
 

vex

Legend
He has played for a long time and his knees may well be a problem. In any case, the returns are surely diminishing such that it may be that he sees it that way himself at this point.
You’re almost certainly right. Just wish it would happen cause it would be so cool and make doubles exciting
 
Why not @Spencer Gore ?
Of course someone who is 3rd today is better than Laver/Rosewall/Perry/Pancho etc etc
Modern day athletes are all better due to evolution.

It is like saying Carl Lewis was the GOAT of 100M sprinting in the late 1980s and early 1990s but sprinters like Bolt, Gay, Blake, Gatlin, Powell, Coleman, Maurice Greene are/were all faster, so they are all better.

Here are a list of sprinters who are quicker than Carl Lewis ever was, being the GOAT 30-35 years ago assured you of nothing !

291907795_2927682177378260_4345736844236609695_n.jpg
Listen, I'm not saying Djokovic wouldn't give Rod Laver a game if both were using modern rackets. Of course he would, Rod is 83!
 

Kozzy

Hall of Fame
It really is amazing how recency bias takes over. I'm ok if Federer retires, but there's simply no way you can call him #3 - honestly, I think Rafa, Roger, and Novak kind of share the top spot together, no matter what happens from here on out. One of them will end up with the most grand slam titles, but neither Rafa nor Novak would have as many as they do now if Roger hadn't shown the way. There is no #1 - there are 3 #1s...
 

puppybutts

Hall of Fame
That's how it happens...you have all this fire for years, decades even, for something. As your body starts to give up, your mind urges you forward. Then one day you're watching someone else do the thing and realize, your fire isn't there anymore, probably went out a good bit before you realized it, and you're ok with that.

Beyond accomplishments, it's been fascinating to see Federer and Serena adopt their games across generations of players. I will miss them, if anything for the nostalgia of being able to turn on my TV and seeing them there.
 

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
Federer was caught in the transition between the classical style of play derived from the woodie and gut days and the modern topspin game derived from bigger graphite rackets and polys. He tried his best to adjust by moving from a 90 to a 97 but he still could not keep up with the modern game. He was basically the victim of technology changes.

Having said that, I have modeled my game after him due to reasons of injury prevention.
inb4 three knee surgeries and chronic back issues.
 
Top