FEDERER’s historic age related H-H disadvantage

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Federer wins all hypothetical matches.

Federers hypothetical matches are a pure spiritual experience!

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Federer regularly had the crowd against him playing Agassi or Roddick in the US. Come to think, 8 of 11 Federer-Agassi matches were on American soil (IW, Miami, USO, Houston WTF).

Awwwww poor Federer

 

[TheAssassin]

Funny thing is if Federer hadn't kept playing for such a long time he would have probably lost his Slam record by now. So while he has been at a disadvantage for a while now, he's been playing better than any other veteran before him.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Funny thing is if Federer hadn't kept playing for such a long time he would have probably lost his Slam record by now. So while he has been at a disadvantage for a while now, he's been playing better than any other veteran before him.

I think that both he and we, his fans, are content with what he is doing.

It is other groups that are running around and going crazy.

May he play for a long, long time.

 

[Lew II]

Federer is like 3-11 against Djokodal in Slam matches since 2010-11 when he was 28/29 y/o.

And in 1 of his 3 wins he was 35 years old, older than in any of his losses.

 

[Jonas78]

They're coetaneous. This thread is about age.

Why dont you throw in Gasquet and Monfils as well?

 

[Lew II]

Why dont you throw in Gasquet and Monfils as well?

Because Murray is an ATG, and they are not.

 

[Jonas78]

Because Murray is an ATG, and they are not.

Look. I have no problem accepting Federers negative H2H vs Djokovic and Nadal. But to combine Djokovic, Nadal and Murray into one player and then cherrypick two time intervals, without looking at their or Federers respective form, surface etc, makes no sense.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Funny thing is if Federer hadn't kept playing for such a long time he would have probably lost his Slam record by now. So while he has been at a disadvantage for a while now, he's been playing better than any other veteran before him.

Funny thing, no player is denigrated by the Federer fans as the Old Fed. You will think that Old Fed is same or even worse level player than Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, 2007 AO Gonzalez etc etc. based just on some of the writings by his biggest fans on this forum. In reality the Old Fed is the main protector of the young so called peak Fed legacy. But somehow I don't expect these Fed fans to understand that.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Funny thing, no player is denigrated by the Federer fans as the Old Fed. You will think that Old Fed is same or even worse level player than Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, 2007 AO Gonzalez etc etc. based just on some of the writings by his biggest fans on this forum. In reality the Old Fed is the main protector of the young so called peak Fed legacy. But somehow I don't expect these Fed fans to understand that.

Feds 2017 makes his early slams look so much worse lol
It also makes the age excuse Fed fans talk about being thin air and no meaning.

 

[ABCD]

Funny thing, no player is denigrated by the Federer fans as the Old Fed. You will think that Old Fed is same or even worse level player than Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, 2007 AO Gonzalez etc etc. based just on some of the writings by his biggest fans on this forum. In reality the Old Fed is the main protector of the young so called peak Fed legacy. But somehow I don't expect these Fed fans to understand that.

You are spot on. This phenomenon can be termed "Federer paradox". Many Fed fans claim that Federer is the worst player ever and everyone can beat him (even insult Federer for his own self-assessment) to argue that he is the GOAT.

 

[upchuck]

Old Fed, until recently, was still better than Roddick and Hewitt were in 04-06, so while aging may have affected his H2H record with Djokovic, it does not alter the verdict in the strong era debate.

Also, in relation to these stats, accept the fact that Federer's own generation rivals were a let-down. Most had nowhere near the longevity; and even in their prime they didn't make it far enough to play Federer as much as the other big 4 players did.

 

[KINGROGER]

Funny thing, no player is denigrated by the Federer fans as the Old Fed. You will think that Old Fed is same or even worse level player than Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, 2007 AO Gonzalez etc etc. based just on some of the writings by his biggest fans on this forum. In reality the Old Fed is the main protector of the young so called peak Fed legacy. But somehow I don't expect these Fed fans to understand that.

Feds 2017 makes his early slams look so much worse lol
It also makes the age excuse Fed fans talk about being thin air and no meaning.

Two ridiculous posts in a row. Doesn’t surprise me.

 

[Lew II]

Look. I have no problem accepting Federers negative H2H vs Djokovic and Nadal. But to combine Djokovic, Nadal and Murray into one player and then cherrypick two time intervals, without looking at their or Federers respective form, surface etc, makes no sense.

The difference is so big that there's no need to check those things.

 

[KINGROGER]

Old Fed, until recently, was still better than Roddick and Hewitt were in 04-06, so while aging may have affected his H2H record with Djokovic, it does not alter the verdict in the strong era debate.

Also, in relation to these stats, accept the fact that Federer's own generation rivals were a let-down. Most had nowhere near the longevity; and even in their prime they didn't make it far enough to play Federer as much as the other big 4 players did.

14-16 Fed was no better than Roddick or Hewitt at Wimbledon/USO. And those guys faced a better player than 14-15 Nole in 04-06 Fed (at those 2 events at least).

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I didn't know that there are so many fans of Riemann amongst the Federer detractors.

 

[KINGROGER]

The difference is so big that there's no need to check those things.

Slam h2h vs Djokovic in 07-12: 6-5
Slam h2h in 14-16: 0-4

“Peak Federer” hahahaha

Murray isn’t worth mentioning. Fed has always owned him at slams, Murray had the upper hand over BO3 between 08-10 during a time period he was losing to everyone.

Nadal in 2017 had nowhere near the defence or passing shots of young Nadal, which was what always bothered Fed... and all their matches in that year were on HC with 0 clay. But your flawed stats don’t tell you that.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Two ridiculous posts in a row. Doesn’t surprise me.

Yeah someone in a tennis forum calling themselves KingRoger is too be taken seriously.

 

[Nadal_Django]

You are spot on. This phenomenon can be termed "Federer paradox". Many Fed fans claim that Federer is the worst player ever and everyone can beat him (even insult Federer for his own self-assessment) to prove that he is the GOAT.

Yes, and the next step is to prove that we are in the weakest era in history right now. Everything is weak, the next gen is weak, the Fedalovic is weak, the lost gen is lost, the rest of them are just mugs.

Tennis had his highest peak somewhere around 2005-06 and since then is complete downhill. A total devolution.

Otherwise how on earth a crippled, washed up, pensioner like Fed can still win Slams as 35-36.

Or how can Djokodal still dominate tennis if it's not for weak era. God forbid is beacuse they are few of the Greatests Unique players in the tennis history isn't it. Must be the field. It must!

 

[KINGROGER]

Yeah someone in a tennis forum calling themselves KingRoger is too be taken seriously.

More seriously than some bitter little hater who spends their day spewing bile towards a tennis player. The name isn’t relevant, it’s something I threw together with little thought.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yes, and the next step is to prove that we are in the weakest era in history right now. Everything is weak, the next gen is weak, the Fedalovic is weak, the lost gen is lost, the rest of them are just mugs. Tennis had his highest peak somewhere around 2005-06 and since then is complete downhill. A total devolution. Otherwise how on earth a crippled, washed up, pensioner like Fed can still win Slams as 35-36. Or how can Djokodal still dominate tennis if it's not for weak era. God forbid is beacuse they are few of the Greatests Unique players in the tennis history isn't it. Must be the field. It must!

You’ll struggle to find anyone who thinks 05/06 was the peak of tennis.... more like 07-13 as a whole. But then again you’re pathetic troll so I take your posts with a pinch of salt.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

More seriously than some bitter little hater who spends their day spewing bile towards a tennis player. The name isn’t relevant, it’s something I threw together with little thought.

Sorry. Can’t take someone w crazy fan profiles like yourself and some others in here seriously. Impossible to discuss tennis with fanboys.

 

[KINGROGER]

Sorry. Can’t take someone w crazy fan profiles like yourself and some others in here seriously. Impossible to discuss tennis with fanboys.

Says the Fed hater haha.

So bitter and angry because of a tennis player. I can’t take anything you put seriously because of your agenda.

 

[upchuck]

14-16 Fed was no better than Roddick or Hewitt at Wimbledon/USO. And those guys faced a better player than 14-15 Nole in 04-06 Fed (at those 2 events at least).

He was unquestionably better than both. Quicker with more variety than Roddick and a better server with more offensive weapons than Hewitt. And that's just the beginning of it.

 

[KINGROGER]

He was unquestionably better than both. Quicker with more variety than Roddick and a better server with more offensive weapons than Hewitt. And that's just the beginning of it.

Overall yeah he was better, but as slam competiton goes they’re on a similar level. IE not a big obstacle for the peak ATG guy.

 

[vex]

Fed had YEARS of free dominance before Djoker and when Rafa was a teen and then he had YEARS when he was in his peak and Djoker was pre-prime.

Those years passed, he made the most of his opportunity. Now it’s their turn. Stop whining

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Fed had YEARS of free dominance before Djoker and when Rafa was a teen and then he had YEARS when he was in his peak and Djoker was pre-prime.

Those years passed, he made the most of his opportunity. Now it’s their turn. Stop whining

That would be incorrect.

 

[thrust]

I think Connors had it tough in this regard but he also beat down his elders on the come up.

Especially Rosewall. Till now, at least, Federer's body was that of a man 5-10 years younger than he was. IMO this was primarily due to game style, physical training and perhaps genetics. Roger had the advantage over Rafa and Novak when they first appeared on tour, now perhaps, Rafa and Novak have the advantage, In the end, I think, it all evens out.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

OK I accept the premise of the op, but with Fed it is not straight forward as it looks.
Fed is playing to save his record to some extent, so h2h can't be neglected like in Sampras Hewitt case where Sampras wanted last hurrah.
Fed has won 4 slam 10 master and 1 yec after turning 30 and many other final appearance in slam, masters and yec so a win against a 4 slam champ will always be counted.
h2h should never be criteria for deciding greatest player, it should be achievement, and Fed is greatest in open era because of achievement.
From 2014 when he changed Racquet and hired Edberg, he turned the h2h against Rafa and Murray never lost a single match against them, so it's only against Novak he is struggling.
I don't see why Fed fans are making so much fuss over h2h, when he is loosing only to Novak but still manage to win slam against others.
Fed is saving his own legacy, so no sympathy from me to loosing to Novak. Just think if he retired at 30, then he might have ended at third position in slam tally.
So for me it is a sweet deal, lost only against Novak, turned his h2h in against Murray and Rafa, while winning 4 slam and other big titles, and saving his legacy as the greatest player.

 

[upchuck]

Overall yeah he was better, but as slam competiton goes they’re on a similar level. IE not a big obstacle for the peak ATG guy.

I disagree entirely. Thing is, in 2015, Federer played worse than expected against Djokovic in the Wimbledon and US Open tournaments. He developed a mental block.

 

[KINGROGER]

I disagree entirely. Thing is, in 2015, Federer played worse than expected against Djokovic in the Wimbledon and US Open tournaments. He developed a mental block.

He couldn’t even take Djokovic to 5 in 2015. He did no better than Roddick or Hewitt did vs peak Fed. In fact, Agassi did better in 2004 by making it a 5 set match.

Yeah I agree some of it was mental. But he didn’t bring his very best possible level over BO5 so he can’t be counted as a very tough opponent.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Says the Fed hater haha.

So bitter and angry because of a tennis player. I can’t take anything you put seriously because of your agenda.

That was the best you could do? Copy my points?

 

[msc886]

Federer will always have an age disadvantage when it comes to H2H against Nadal/Djokovic.

People forget that because the quality of younger players have been poor for the last 10 years and Nadal/Djokovic hasn’t had the same level of challenges Fed had to deal with.

 

[TennisPinkBabe]

22-27yo Federer vs 17-22yo Big4 --> 16-23

33-36yo Federer vs 27-31yo Big4 --> 13-8

Interesting, so Fed did in fact have much tougher competition during his peak years.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Fed had YEARS of free dominance before Djoker and when Rafa was a teen and then he had YEARS when he was in his peak and Djoker was pre-prime.

Those years passed, he made the most of his opportunity. Now it’s their turn. Stop whining

Federer was Slam contender as early as 2002. Him losing early to Arazi, Ancic at RG and WB and to Horna at the 2003 RG were huge shocks at that time. He was even called by the journos as the best player never to win Slam at one time.

So in a period without an older dominating prime ATG as the major obstacle, he had like almost an decade before the Prime Djokovic appearence and 6 years before the birth of non clay Prime Rafa, to amass his Slam numbers outside clay.

So I don't understand the whining myself either.

 

[sbengte]

You mean the entities responsible for this mess in the first place? They also only see dollar signs and of course Fed sells, so they do everything they can to help Fed

Like giving him the worst possible draws and schedules possible at slams for nearly a decade ?

 

[ghostofMecir]

You mean the entities responsible for this mess in the first place? They also only see dollar signs and of course Fed sells, so they do everything they can to help Fed

You can’t sell something that doesn’t sell in the first place. You seem like an older poster and surely you know this.

 

[vex]

That would be incorrect.

because...?

Dude had SEVEN freaking PRIME years to dominate before Djoker's prime began. And dominate he did. A good chunk of that time Rafa wasn't good off clay. Even when Rafa improved off clay Fed was still plenty young and in his prime. Rafa just beat him at times.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

because...?

Dude had SEVEN freaking PRIME years to dominate before Djoker's prime began. A good chunk of that time Rafa wasn't good off clay. Even when Rafa improved off clay Fed was still young and in his prime. Rafa just beat him at times.

There were only two years between Federer's first Major and Nadal's first Major. Not only that, but, because of the match up, Federer was actually playing effectively three Majors, where he could potentially dominate, and two of them were saturated with the most players able to do well on their surfaces.

You have to define what "prime" means, but you will be disappointed to know that most reasonable definitions put Federer in significant disadvantage with both Nadal and Djokovic.

Still, interesting how you define it: please define it, and then give your estimate for each of the three players.

Also, give a definition about "peak", so that new have a more clear view of what exactly we are discussing.

 

[vex]

There were only two years between Federer's first Major and Nadal's first Major. Not only that, but, because of the match up, Federer was actually playing effectively three Majors, where he could potentially dominate, and two of them were saturated with the most players able to do well on their surfaces.

You have to define what "prime" means, but you will be disappointed to know that most reasonable definitions put Federer in significant disadvantage with both Nadal and Djokovic.

Still, interesting how you define it: please define it, and then give your estimate for each of the three players.

Also, give a definition about "peak", so that new have a more clear view of what exactly we are discussing.

Djoker didn't reach his potential until 2011. He had a MASSIVE jump in level at that point and has played at that level or 90% of it since then excluding the injury period. 2011 was the start of his prime, 2010 at the earliest but that's including a much weaker version of him as "prime".

Rafa just beat Fed despite Fed having every advantage of being in his absolute prime as a mid 20 year old and Rafa being a teen. The fact that Fed couldn't compete with Rafa on clay or let Rafa win Wimbledon... thats on Fed.

Bottom line, Fed did what he was supposed to do. He cleaned up in his prime, had every opportunity to beat up on baby Djoker and Rafa. Now the tables are turned. They have the age advantage that he previously enjoyed.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Djoker didn't reach his potential until 2011. He had a MASSIVE jump in level at that point and has played at that level or 90% of it since then excluding the injury period. 2011 was the start of his prime, 2010 at the earliest but that's including a much weaker version of him as "prime".

Rafa just beat Fed despite Fed having every advantage of being in his absolute prime as a mid 20 year old and Rafa being a teen. The fact that Fed couldn't compete with Rafa on clay or let Rafa win Wimbledon... thats on Fed.

Bottom line, Fed did what he was supposed to do. He cleaned up in his prime, had every opportunity to beat up on baby Djoker and Rafa. Now the tables are turned. They have the age advantage that he previously enjoyed.

Please read my post again.

You were supposed to put some framework within which a sensible discussion can be had.

1) How do you define "prime"?
2) what is to you the difference between "prime" and "peak"?
3) what do you consider to be the primes and peaks of each of the three players in question?

 

[vex]

Please read my post again.

You were supposed to put some framework within which a sensible discussion can be had.

1) How do you define "prime"?
2) what is to you the difference between "prime" and "peak"?
3) what do you consider to be the primes and peaks of each of the three players in question?

All the points I made are quite sensible, I reject ur framework. There really isn't an argument here. Its very very simple. Fed reached his best years when Djoker/Rafa were young and inexperienced. He took advantage. Now they're in their best years and he's old. Tables turned.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

All the points I made are quite sensible, I reject ur framework. There really isn't an argument here. Its very very simple. Fed reached his best years when Djoker/Rafa were young and inexperienced. He took advantage. Now they're in their best years and he's old. Tables turned.

I haven't put forward any framework .... yet.

I was giving you the chance to clarify your position in regard to such, but you refuse to do so.

The truth is that I could have put mine, but I was weary of the situation, as many times people don't want to discuss, but just to troll, so I decided to see if you really want to discuss sensibly. So far you haven't shown that you do, so I don't have to waste my time by getting into yet another dispute for the sake of a dispute.

If you answer my questions, I will also proceed to clarify my positions. If not it is better to end this conversation.

 

[vex]

I haven't put forward any framework .... yet.

I was giving you the chance to clarify your position in regard to such, but you refuse to do so.

The truth is that I could have put mine, but I was weary of the situation, as many times people don't want to discuss, but just to troll, so I decided to see if you really want to discuss sensibly. So far you haven't shown that you do, so I don't have to waste my time by getting into yet another dispute for the sake of a dispute.

If you answer my questions, I will also proceed to clarify my positions. If not it is better to end this conversation.

I don't feel like we're speaking the same language. You haven't responded to any of my points. Time to move on.

 

[Lew II]

Let's see something more objective than age:

Wins over top-5 ranked Big3:

Djokovic 48
Nadal 42
Federer 28

Wins over top-5 ranked Big4/Agassi:

Djokovic 64
Nadal 52
Federer 41

 

[Gary Duane]

Tennis would be better off with Fed retiring as soon as possible

Only for people who dislike him.

Tennis would be better of if Novak were not winning all slams - only if you don't like him.

Tennis would be better off if Nadal would retire and stop going on a rampage every year on clay - only if you don't like him.

And so on.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Most players wind up having their biggest H-H battles against players within 2 years their age. Obviously, earlier success as a teen and then not being able to stay on tour past 30 will mean fewer matches against younger players, but Federer has played the most matches against two players 5 and 6 years younger than he.

—49 semis, 59 Finals against Djokovic, Nadal, Berdych, Del Potro, and Murray;
—50 Finals against Rafa, Nole, Murray
—16 slam finals, 17 slam SFs, 9 QFs

He had already played 27 matches vs. Djokovic before at 30 years or younger and 28 vs. Nadal.

The only player who comes close is Connors who played his most H-H matches at even greater age disadvantage than Federer has, but also played them fewer times when older as an actual slam contender.

Given historical precedence, Federer should have won a lot less than he has but has wound up battling against a generation younger of players 5-6 years younger than he.

Roger Federer (born 1981)

Most matches played against:

• Djokovic, 47, born 1987, opponent 6 years younger
• Nadal, 38, born 1986, opponent 5 years younger
• Berdych, 26, born 1985, opponent 4 years younger
• Hewitt, 26, born 1981, same age
• Del Potro, 25, born 1988, opponent 7 years years younger
• Murray, 25, born 1987, opponent 6 years younger

49 semis, 59 Finals against Djokovic, Nadal, Berdych, Del Potro, and Murray;
50 Finals against Rafa, Nole, Murray
16 slam finals, 17 slam SFs, 9 QFs
27 matches vs. Djokovic before at 30 years or younger, 28 vs. Adan.

Rafael Nadal (born 1986)

Most matches played against:

• Djokovic, 53, born 1987, opponent 1 year younger
• Federer, 38, born 1981, opponent 5 years older
• Ferrer, 31, born 1982, opponent 4 years older
• Berdych, 24, born 1985, opponent 1year younger
• Murray, 24, born 1987, opponent 1 year younger

Novak Djokovic (born 1987)

Most matches played against:

• Nadal, 53, born 1986, opponent 1 years older
• Federer, 47, born 1981, opponent 6years older
• Murray, 36, opponent same age
• Berdych, 26, born 1985, opponent 2 years older
• Wawrinka, 25, born 1985, opponent 2years older

Pete Sampras (born 1971)

Most matches played against:

• Agassi, 33, born 1970, opponent 1 years older
• Todd Martin, 22, born 1970, opponent 1 year older
• Chang, 20, born 1972, opponent 1 year younger
• Courier, 20, born 1970, opponent 1 years older
• Becker, 19, born 1967, opponent 4 years older

Bjorn Borg (born 1956)

Most matches played against:

• Connors, 23, born 1952, opponent 4 years older
• Vilas, 22, born 1952, opponent 4 years older
• Gerulitis, 14, born 1954, opponent 2years older
• Panatta, 16, born 1950, opponent 6 years older
• Orantes, 16, born 1949, opponent 7 years older

Andre Agassi (born 1970)

Most matches played against:

• Sampras, 33, born 1971, opponent 1 years younger
• Chang, 22, born 1972, opponent 2 years younger
• Todd Martin, 18, born 1970, opponent same age
• Rafter, 15, born 1972, opponent 2 years younger
• Jan Michael Gambill, 13, born 1977, opponent 7 years younger
• Becker, 13, born 1967, opponent 3 years older

Ivan Lendl (born 1960)

Most matches played against:

• McEnroe, 36, born 1959, opponent 1 years younger
• Connors, 35, born 1952, opponent 8 years older
• Edberg, 25, born 1966, opponent 7 years younger
• Wilander, 22, born 1964, opponent 4 years younger
• Becker, 20, born 1967, opponent 7 years younger

John McEnroe(born 1959)

Most matches played against:

• Lendl, 36, born 1960, opponent 1 years younger
• Connors, 34, born 1952, opponent 7 years older
• Kriek, 17, born 1958, opponent 1 years older
• Gerulitis, 14, born 1954, opponent 5 years older
• Borg, 14, born 1956, opponent 4 years older

Jimmy Connors (born 1952)

Most matches played against:

• Lendl, 35, born 1960, opponent 8 years younger
• McEnroe, 34, born 1959, opponent 7 years younger
• Nastase, 24, born 1946, opponent 6 years older
• Borg, 23, born 1956, opponent 4 years younger
• Tanner, 21, born 1951, opponent 1 years older

8 slam Finals, 17 slam SFs

Mats Wilander (born 1964)

Most matches played against:

• Lendl, 22, born 1960, opponent 4 years older
• Edberg, 20, born 1966, opponent 2 years older
• Chang, 21, born 1972, opponent 8 years younger
• Leconte, 13, born 1963, opponent 1 years older
• Nystrom, 13, born 1963, opponent 1 years older
• McEnroe, 13, born 1959, opponent 5 years older

Boris Becker (born 1967)

Most matches played against:

• Edberg, 35, born 1966, opponent 1 years older
• Lendl, 20, born 1960, opponent 7 years older
• Ivanisevic, 19, born 1971, opponent 4 years younger
• Sampras, 19, born 1971, opponent 4 years younger
• Agassi, 13, born 1971, opponent 3 years younger
• Forget, 13, born 1965, opponent 2 years older

Stefan Edberg (born 1966)

Most matches played against:

• Becker, 35, born 1967, opponent 1 years younger
• Lendl, 25, born 1960, opponent 6 years older
• Chang, 21, born 1972, opponent 6 years younger
• Wilander, 20, born 1964, opponent 2 years older
• Ivanisevic, 19, born 1971, opponent 5 years younger
• Gilbert, 19, born 1961, opponent 5 years older

.

Great post. However it expected that the older Player has the advantage in the beginning when he is at his peak while the younger player is still developing. You can see it with Fed and Djokovic at the USO I think. So it would be also interesting to see how many matches these players played when, and try to identify when the advantage switched.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Great post. However it expected that the older Player has the advantage in the beginning when he is at his peak while the younger player is still developing. You can see it with Fed and Djokovic at the USO I think. So it would be also interesting to see how many matches these players played when, and try to identify when the advantage switched.

Yeah, was going to break it down, but then realized how much time it would take .

Also, would have to find an overall average ”advatange period” and “disadvantage period” based on mean H-H turnarounds between ATGs. Don’t know how Lew has as much time as he does unless he’s a basement dweller.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I don't know if they do. His fans will argue that everything he's doing at his age is only adding to his legacy. His detractors will say he's damaging his legacy whenever he loses to his rivals. The "correct" answer will depend on which camp you belong to.

Regardless, with each passing year, I'm growing more and more tired of seeing Fed still on tour. Why won't he retire? Is his greed so insatiable that he wants to milk every last bit of possible playing time he has?

Breaking News: Tennis player wants to play tennis.

 

[netlets]

Yeah?

Tell that to Borg.

Clay was Borg's best surface