Bjorn Borg tips Roger Federer to bow out at the top, retiring at the end of next season

[Levi_Ackerman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...ps-Roger-Federer-bow-retiring-end-season.html

I desperately hope Federer wins on Sunday and then wins gold in Rio next year. It would be very poetic if he retires after doing both. But something tells me he won't retire regardless of what happens. And why should he? He obviously loves the game. And he'll probably still be world number 2. I know, I know, "better to retire at the top". But that's BS. It doesn't really matter how you retire. What matters is that you do on your own terms.

Even Borg regretted retiring at 25, and so did Mac (can't remember what age). They even tried to come back.

So,I hope Federer does his thing. Plus, from a tennis fan's POV, why would any of us want the joy that is watching the Maestro play to end? I mean, did y'all see his match yesterday?

 

[NGM]

He is not a quitter, like you, Borg. Please dont give sh it advice like that.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

He is not a quitter, like you, Borg. Please dont give sh it advice like that.

Calling Borg "quitter" is a little harsh, don't ya think?

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

He was a quitter. It is a common sense.
Federer has not reached his limit yet. He can do much more than anybody can imagine. And some quitter advices he should quit.

Fuc ker.

Jesus Christ. Relax. It's just his opinion. He isn't even advising Federer to retire. He's tipping him to, i.e. predicting he will retire. Be rational ffs.

 

[Vrad]

Federer will quit when he stops enjoying playing professional tennis and/or when he thinks he cannot compete at the topmost levels.

He loves the sport, the fans, the traveling, the adulation, the drama, etc. too much to quit because he wants to "maintain a legacy".

I simply don't understand why people think Federer will give up doing something he loves, and gets paid REALLY REALLY well to do, to simply "maintain his legacy". And this is even before you realize that there is no reason to believe that Federer playing at a lower level a year or 2 from now would damage his legacy in any ways.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

^My sentiments exactly. This reminds me of a dialogue from the movie "Red Dragon":


Will Graham: [speaking of the serial killer he's investigating] He's not going to stop.
Detective: Why not?
Will Graham: Because it makes him God. Would you give that up?

 

[Bartelby]

Borg did not make a recommendation. He made a prediction.

 

[Elektra]

Federer will quit when he stops enjoying playing professional tennis and/or when he thinks he cannot compete at the topmost levels.

He loves the sport, the fans, the traveling, the adulation, the drama, etc. too much to quit because he wants to "maintain a legacy".

I simply don't understand why people think Federer will give up doing something he loves, and gets paid REALLY REALLY well to do, to simply "maintain his legacy". And this is even before you realize that there is no reason to believe that Federer playing at a lower level a year or 2 from now would damage his legacy in any ways.

Cause of the wear and tear of the body, a smart athlete will know when to quit when he/she feels the body breaking down. The older he gets the longer his recovery period. Federer has not taken extended breaks so he needs to be more careful. Federer does a good job in concealing his wear and tear.

 

[NGM]

Sampras retierd at the top and he regret for the rest of his life about that.

May Borg be too tired reading articles about Federer everyday in too many years and he tries to put an end on it himself.

 

[Munch]

I don't think he would have the goal to retire whilst still "at the top". I would have thought that he would just keep playing for as long as he physically can keep up and more importantly has the motivation to actually do so. That said, however, someone as classy and graceful with the resume he has could walk into any tennis related job on the planet when he does retire. It was interesting to hear both Roddick and Henman saying they had never regretted retiring due to the quality of life they have been able to lead away from the tour. You simply never know when he'll have had enough.

 

[SQA333]

Federer should play for as long as he wants. Barring injury it's hard to imagine him free-falling down the rankings (i.e. out of the top 20, Sampras-style) given his resurgence after 2013.

 

[Vrad]

Cause of the wear and tear of the body, a smart athlete will know when to quit when he/she feels the body breaking down. The older he gets the longer his recovery period. Federer has not taken extended breaks so he needs to be more careful. Federer does a good job in concealing his wear and tear.

I agree. Wear and tear on the body could lead to Federer quitting. I cannot imagine Federer would enjoy playing if his body hurts every time he hits the tennis courts either.

But Borg is not saying Federer will quit because his body is wearing down. He is saying Federer will want to "quit at the top" which implies "maintaining your legacy" reasons for quitting. I completely disagree with this line of reasoning. Maybe it made sense 30-40 years ago, when there was less money in tennis. But today, when retirement could lead to an immediate reduction in earnings in the tens of millions range for someone like Federer, I really doubt "maintaining a legacy" or "wanting to quit at the top" are good reasons for quitting.

 

[zep]

Sampras retierd at the top and he regret for the rest of his life about that.

May Borg be too tired reading articles about Federer everyday in too many years and he tries to put an end on it himself.

I don't think Sampras ever regretted about retiring so early. The only thing he regretted was not changing his racket. When Sampras retired he had no more goals to fulfill. The only thing he did not achieve was out of his reach by then and his records looked safe for at least a couple of decades. One of the reasons why Federer is still working so hard is that he wants to put his main record as far from Nadal's reach as possible. He does not talk about it but he definitely wants to hold on to it as long as possible. If Sampras had someone 5 years younger than him chasing him with 11 slams he probably would have continued after 2002. He had no motivation to continue after 2002. He had to prove his doubters wrong and he did that and signed off in style.

 

[Gazelle]

Ye, but Sampras was really burned out in 2002. I don't think he could have won another slam after 2002, with the young guard taking over.

 

[laughingcavalier]

The funny thing about Borg using the excuse that he was 'Burned Out' for his retirement was that he only once ever played the Australian Open.So his year consisted of 3 slams and then a nice long break into the new year.Granted,he did go deep in most tournaments but he still wasn't playing like Davydenko and entering 30 odd tournaments in a year.


'Burned Out' might be his euphemism for not being able to take out slugging it with his nemesis Mcenroe in the next couple of years,especially after John was getting the upper hand on him towards the end.They finished even stevens in their head to head but most people pretty much surmise that he would've eclipsed Borg if he stuck around.

 

[Antonio Puente]

"Bow out on top"

Top of what? Fed's won one slam since the beginning of February, 2010... 5 and 1/2 years.

Also, don't worry about the gold. Fed already has a gold in doubles, and I've been told it's just as good as a good singles medal. After all, it's the same medal.

 

[BGod]

When Roger came back I felt he was retiring end of 2016 because he lost the Gold to Murray. Unless he wins 2 Slams next season I'm confident in that prediction.

Although if he's record driven he'll need one more Slam to have the overall appearance record of 71.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

"Bow out on top"

Top of what?

Top of Nadal, who is down at #10.

Also, don't worry about the gold. Fed already has a gold in doubles, and I've been told it's just as good as a good singles medal. After all, it's the same medal.

It is just as good as a Singles Medal. Ask the Olympic committee if you don't think that's the case. However, it is a Doubles Achievement and it counts for nothing as far as his Singles Resume is concerned.

 

[tennisaddict]

"Bow out on top"

Top of what? Fed's won one slam since the beginning of February, 2010... 5 and 1/2 years.

Also, don't worry about the gold. Fed already has a gold in doubles, and I've been told it's just as good as a good singles medal. After all, it's the same medal.

Serious butthurt detected.

How does ATP ranking #2 look like at age 34 ? If Fed should retire, then so do all players ranked less than Fed.

And that leaves no opponent for Novak to play. ATP has to conduct the tour, right ?