Federer refuted "changing of the guard claim", won't retire anytime soon

#1
Roger Federer slaps down ‘changing of the guard’ talk after Australian Open exit

AUSTRALIAN OPEN

January 21, 2019 6:35am

Source: FOX SPORTS

[https://cdn]Roger Federer at his post match press conference following a shock fourth round loss to Stefanos TsitsipasSource: AFP

Swiss great Roger Federer denied Sunday his defeat to Greek young gun Stefanos Tsitsipas signalled a changing of the guard as he announced he will play the French Open this year for the first time since 2015.

The 20-time Grand Slam champion was shocked by a man 17 years his junior in the last 16 of the Australian Open 6-7 (11-13), 7-6 (7/3), 7-5, 7-6 (7/5) on Rod Laver Arena.
It prompted tennis legend John McEnroe to declare the crowd were watching the end of an era.
Federer, however, delivered a perfect backhand to the American.
“Yeah, sure,” Federer said at his press conference, when asked about McEnroe’s assertion during an on-court interview with Tsitsipas.

[https://www]

Tsitsipas eliminates Federer
2:11

“He’s in front of the mic a lot. He’s always going to say stuff. I love John (but) I’ve heard that story the last 10 years. From that standpoint, nothing new there.”
While not ready to agree his time as a grand slam contender is up, Federer was happy to welcome Tsitsipas to the “next level”.
“I think he’s definitely done a really nice job now the last year and a half,” Federer said.
“I mean before that, too, obviously. But beating Novak (Djokovic) in Toronto, the likes of (Kevin) Anderson and (Sascha) Zverev, now me here. That’s what you need to do to get to the next level. He’s doing that. It’s really nice for him.

[https://www]

"Nothing new there"
0:55

And in a signal that he is hungry for more, the 37-year-old said he planned to play on clay again this year for the first time since 2015.
“It’s a bit of a desire. I’m in a phase where I want to have fun and I’ve missed not doing it,” he told reporters of the French Open.
He missed Roland Garros in 2016 with an injury and skipped the clay season the last two years.
MORE TENNIS NEWS
‘NEW STAR IS BORN’: Federer knocked out of Aus Open by 20-year-old Greek Freak
‘PATHETIC’: Sharapova called a ‘cheat’ over toilet break
‘SHE DOESN’T NEED A WILDCARD’: Nadal opens up on mystery WAG
[https://cdn]Tsitsipas announced himself with the massive upset.Source: AFP
“I don’t feel it is necessary to have a big break again,” he added. The long-haired Tsitsipas, seeded 14, has been touted as a future Grand Slam champion and Federer had nothing but praise, saying he saw similarities to himself.
“He has a one-handed backhand and I used to have long hair, too,” said the world number three.
“Yeah, so maybe a little bit, sure. He has more of a continental grip than players nowadays. That’s a bit more my way than, let’s say, Rafa’s way.
“I see him definitely being high up in the game for a long time. That was a good night for him tonight.”
[https://cdn]Greece's Stefanos Tsitsipas knocked Federer out of the Australian Open in a fourth round epic.Source: AFP
Federer conceded he had “massive regrets” about losing and said he didn’t win because he struggled to convert his 12 break points, making none of them count.
“I have massive regrets, you know, tonight. I might not look the part, but I am. I felt like I have to win the second set,” he said.
“I don’t care how I do it, but I have to do it. Cost me the game tonight. “There is always multiple factors that play into a match like this,” he added. “But it definitely didn’t go the way I was hoping on the break points. I also didn’t break him at the Hopman Cup, so clearly something is wrong how I return him, what I’m trying to do
.
 

Zebrev

Hall of Fame
#2
Yeah, it's true. I district remember commentators saying he was at the end of his career during the early rounds of Wimby in 2011/12. 7 years later he's still in top ten. Maybe he's done as a top 3 player, but maybe he's fine with that. Doesn't mean he has to retire straight away. The Man loves tennis, and no, it's not just about how many matches he wins. Sometimes being apart of a match like took place today can be very rewarding, even if it's also painful in the short-term.
 
#4
Maybe he's done as a top 3 player, but maybe he's fine with that.
I know I am. After being inflated from his AO 18 points for so long, his ranking will now start to reflect who he actually is. Still undoubtedly a top 10 player and dangerous to anyone, but not a guarantee for late rounds anymore and probably doesn't deserve his own quarter because of that.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
#5
What is this changing off the guard thing anyway ?? He is hardly the best player ever since 2008.Yes he has his moments but always live on the mercy off Nadal and Djokovic.
 
#6
No player likes hearing that they are being pushed out or someone is taking their spot after they have been there so long but it did kind of feel like a changing of the guard last night. Otherwise, I agree with Federer in that McEnroe talks too much.
Hasn't fed already been pushed out though many times. Imo he really isnt part of the nadal/nole era ans they in particular nadal managed to push him out and there was a changing of the guard back when fed lost his Wimbledon crown in 08. Imo a true changing is someone pushing nole/nadal out in similar fashion but they havent had a young gun snapping at their heels in similar fashion.
 
#7
Fed had massive regrets on not winning that second set? Well, out of the roughly 5 break points Fed had to win the game and set, Tsitipas served either an ace, service winner, or easy volley at the net on 4 of them. There was 1 neutral ball rally that Fed had a good chance on, and he had a bad u.e in hitting long. So total number of break points in a game/set/match doesn't tell the whole story.
 
Last edited:
#9
Hasn't fed already been pushed out though many times. Imo he really isnt part of the nadal/nole era ans they in particular nadal managed to push him out and there was a changing of the guard back when fed lost his Wimbledon crown in 08. Imo a true changing is someone pushing nole/nadal out in similar fashion but they havent had a young gun snapping at their heels in similar fashion.
It's not really pushing you out when you are #2 and #3 in the world the majority of the time, and even going back to #1. Changing of the guard more so means you are replaced by a younger player, and you never truly achieve the same glory again or only briefly on your way out of the game (Sampras '02 USO). Federer was never really replaced and won multiple more Slams after '08.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
#10
I like the fact that it ticked him off a little. He still feels like a contender and has the right to. He's still better than 95% of the tour.
Fed still has a legit shot at Wimbledon this year, and that should be his main goal. I didn't see him winning this AO, I don't think many did, even he was hinting at it. Regardless of the other players, he was never beating Djokovic IMO.
 
#11
Hasn't fed already been pushed out though many times. Imo he really isnt part of the nadal/nole era ans they in particular nadal managed to push him out and there was a changing of the guard back when fed lost his Wimbledon crown in 08. Imo a true changing is someone pushing nole/nadal out in similar fashion but they havent had a young gun snapping at their heels in similar fashion.
Really don't see how 2008 could be considered a changing of the guard since Federer was in all 4 slam finals the next season completing the career grand slam and breaking the slam record. Hardly a changing of the guard.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
#12
It's not really pushing you out when you are #2 and #3 in the world the majority of the time, and even going back to #1. Changing of the guard more so means you are replaced by a younger player, and you never truly achieve the same glory again or only briefly on your way out of the game (Sampras '02 USO). Federer was never really replaced and won multiple more Slams after '08.
You can also argue there is clear changing off the guard ever since 08. The last time he finished the year NO 1 as a player was 10 years ago 2009 and that happened because Nadal problems.
 
#17
Still way lower than Djokovic and Nadal only 2 more than the likes off Murray and Wawrinka.He is hardly the best player ever since 2008.
Only 2 more than Murray and Wawrinka? 2 Slams in itself is a lot. It should be way lower than Djokovic and Nadal since they are 5 and 6 years younger, and they had yet to reach the age when most Slams are won. Still, Federer was there in the way taking his share. After Federer beat Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon, he won 1 more Slam and retired the next year, not remained in the top 5 for another 10 years and win 7 more Slams.
 
#18
Fed still has a legit shot at Wimbledon this year, and that should be his main goal. I didn't see him winning this AO, I don't think many did, even he was hinting at it. Regardless of the other players, he was never beating Djokovic IMO.
I never thought he would. Felt like he had a small chance if someone else did the dirty work for him. Everything has to be working perfectly for him nowadays so that he can get off the court quickly. He's still good enough for that to happen occasionally. Especially at Wimbledon where the body is less taxed and his serve is at its most valuable. He still has the best hands in the game too. He just has trouble getting his body in position now to capitalize on it as often as he used to. Wimbledon suits this version of Federer better than anywhere else.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
#19
Only 2 more than Murray and Wawrinka? 2 Slams in itself is a lot. It should be way lower than Djokovic and Nadal since they are 5 and 6 years younger, and they had yet to reach the age when most Slams are won. Still, Federer was there in the way taking his share. After Federer beat Sampras in 2001 Wimbledon, he won 1 more Slam and retired the next year, not remained in the top 5 for another 10 years and win 5 more Slams.
I dont mean he isnt succesful but he is just not the best player ever since 2008.
 
#20
I dont mean he isnt succesful but he is just not the best player ever since 2008.
But since 2008, which you think could be argued there was a changing of the guard, Federer won 7 more Slams. Just because he was not the best player after 2008 doesn't mean he was completely pushed out.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
#21
But since 2008, which you think could be argued there was a changing of the guard, Federer won 7 more Slams. Just because he was not the best player after 2008 doesn't mean he was completely pushed out.
He has his moments still rely on too much Djokovic and Nadal problems after 2008.The last time he was truly dominant regardrless off his opponents form and problems was 2007.
 
#24
Federer has changed the guard so many times I have lost count already.
He just keeps re-inventing himself.

In 2010 there was a changing of the guard.
Then another in 2012.

Five years later (2017) he changed the guard again by winning three of the next five slams!

Who here has the patience for Fed's tenacity?
 
#25
Federer has changed the guard so many times I have lost count already.
He just keeps re-inventing himself.

In 2010 there was a changing of the guard.
Then another in 2012.

Five years later (2017) he changed the guard again by winning three of the next five slams!

Who here has the patience for Fed's tenacity?
How many times has Roger Federer changed the guard since Wimbledon 2018?
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
#26
Yea so Federer won the same amount of Slams and Connors and Lendl since then. Lol. It's hard to argue that that was a changing of the guard. Federer never went away.
Federer had an Agassi career post Wimbledon 2008 in the sense that won all four slams - USO 2008, RG 2009, W 2009, AO 2010....and at one point held three out of the four slams, and one on every surface.

So, yes, Federer never went away post W 2008. It would be crazy to think that.
 
#27
It's not really pushing you out when you are #2 and #3 in the world the majority of the time, and even going back to #1. Changing of the guard more so means you are replaced by a younger player, and you never truly achieve the same glory again or only briefly on your way out of the game (Sampras '02 USO). Federer was never really replaced and won multiple more Slams after '08.
I guess it's just imo fed is 37 and while fed is fed has been no.2 3 consistently that has more to do with the flop gen. He hasnt been playing like a no.3 in a while and has lost last 3 slams to people not named djokodal. I didnt think his win was a clear win like many did. I'm not taking anything away from tsitsipas btw and totally understand this is a big win but in looking at the grand scheme of things I guess I'm looking for more than defeating a 37 year old on his way out and defeating djokodal consistently in a way they did for him
 
#28
Yeah, it's true. I district remember commentators saying he was at the end of his career during the early rounds of Wimby in 2011/12. 7 years later he's still in top ten. Maybe he's done as a top 3 player, but maybe he's fine with that. Doesn't mean he has to retire straight away. The Man loves tennis, and no, it's not just about how many matches he wins. Sometimes being apart of a match like took place today can be very rewarding, even if it's also painful in the short-term.
Top 10 and falling
 
#29
Poor Federer, every time he loses, he's sent to retirement by the tennis community, same thing for Nadal or Djokovic. I think a lot of people need to take a chill pill, it's only 1 match here. He will have plenty of opportunities to bounce back and he still has a high chance of victory at Wimbledon, which is where I think he will throw everything he's got for another title there. Now if Federer starts losing early at every tournament he enters, then yes I think he will retire because he won't feel like he's got much of a chance anymore, but I don't think we are there yet.
 
#30
Federer had an Agassi career post Wimbledon 2008 in the sense that won all four slams - USO 2008, RG 2009, W 2009, AO 2010....and at one point held three out of the four slams, and one on every surface.

So, yes, Federer never went away post W 2008. It would be crazy to think that.
I totally agree.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
#31
Poor Federer, every time he loses, he's sent to retirement by the tennis community, same thing for Nadal or Djokovic. I think a lot of people need to take a chill pill, it's only 1 match here. He will have plenty of opportunities to bounce back and he still has a high chance of victory at Wimbledon, which is where I think he will throw everything he's got for another title there. Now if Federer starts losing early at every tournament he enters, then yes I think he will retire because he won't feel like he's got much of a chance anymore, but I don't think we are there yet.
It isnt just one match. 4th Wimbledon,4th round US 4 th round AO. He cant even reach QF stage.
 
#32
I guess it's just imo fed is 37 and while fed is fed has been no.2 3 consistently that has more to do with the flop gen. He hasnt been playing like a no.3 in a while and has lost last 3 slams to people not named djokodal. I didnt think his win was a clear win like many did. I'm not taking anything away from tsitsipas btw and totally understand this is a big win but in looking at the grand scheme of things I guess I'm looking for more than defeating a 37 year old on his way out and defeating djokodal consistently in a way they did for him
Federer was the defending AO champion which is why he was #3 not because of the flop gen. Even in his older age he was just a better player than them. Now since that Slam win and probably IW, he hasn't been playing like he was. But this just happened not years ago. Even if they do beat Djokodal somewhat consistently, they still may not be ready to end their Slam winning. Djokodal were also unable to do that to Federer.
 
#33
"Changing of the guard" is a nebulous and overused expression, and Johnny Mac (who I otherwise enjoy as a commentator) does say a lot of meaningless and contradictory things. I also wouldn't be too anxious to comment on that, post-match if I were Fed. He was otherwise complimentary of Tsitsipas.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
#36
The 'changing of the guard' argument has to be right at some point, and with a terminally injured Murray and an ageing and slow Federer it looks like its time has come.
 
#37
I see "changing of the guard" more about who wins slams, and I think that IS changing. People thought the Big Three would go on winning slams forever, and now people are in denial about Nadal's physical decline and the most likely future weakening of Novak's top gear. To get real about Novak, check his return stats since he was a young player - massive peak in 2011, and nothing like that since. That means he has to pick up more and more games on the serve, but there is a limit on that. Will he win more slams? Almost definitely. But will the Big Three continue to win them all?

I don't think so.

So yes, a changing of the guard should be around the corner, and not just for Fed.
 
#42
There wasnt a changing of the guard when Djokovic was out of commission for a year and there isnt a changing of the guard when Federer has been average at absolute best for the last year

Its the same people guarding

Simply on a rotation because everyone needs some rest
Let me just remind you that no one sees big events until after they have happened. It will continue to be the status quo until it isn't, and when that changes no one is going to be right about the timing except someone who gets lucky.

For instance, you could have 32 members of this forum predict each seed is going to win every slam, and then one would always be right, but not because of wisdom but rather just out of luck. It's safe to continue to say one of the Big Three will win each slam, or hope for a surprise from Murray or Wawrinka, but this time Murray is probably gone for good, Wawrinka remains a question mark in the future, and who knows what Fed will now do for the rest of the year.

At the moment we are down to the Big Two, with Nadal only as likely to win as his last injury, and these days his injuries come out of nowhere.

I think the same people are "guarding much more tenuously" at present.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
#43
Yeah, I mean we've been hearing changing of the guard for a while now. I think 2014 was the first major time, between Gulbis' Roland Garros run, Nick, Milos and Grigor at Wimbledon, and then the Cilic-Nishikori final in New York. How'd that pan out? Until someone follows up their stepping up, it means nothing. How exciting would this changing of the guard be if we end up with a Djokovic, Raonic, Bautista-Agut, Nadal final 4?
 
#45
This whole topic is way off. Federer is not “the guard.” He lost to Millman in his most recent slam.
Djokovic and Nadal are the current “guard”. I say that as a Fed fan and it’s been that way for ages.
 
#46
Changing of the guard happened at AO08 and WB08. Since then, Fed has applied to be a substitute teacher and has substituted for 8 slams. Fed is still the substitute teacher until at least 2of4 slams is NOT held by Fedalovic. ;)

In case it's not clear, Fed is not the guard. Djokovic and Nadal are the guards. :p
 
#47
I'm the first to say that Fed clearly knows more about his scheduling and condition than I do but it seems dumb to play the French this year unless it is his last. He is coming off a slam run since his AO victory of DNP, QF, 4R, 4R. That trend is not going to reverse at RG where there is so much more danger in the field for him. It also seems like it would adversley affect his Wimby preperation which is still his best shot at another slam title.
 
#48
Federer was the defending AO champion which is why he was #3 not because of the flop gen. Even in his older age he was just a better player than them. Now since that Slam win and probably IW, he hasn't been playing like he was. But this just happened not years ago. Even if they do beat Djokodal somewhat consistently, they still may not be ready to end their Slam winning. Djokodal were also unable to do that to Federer.
Yeah but they gave him pretty much a good fight and for many years stopped him from winning slam. You have to admit that they dont hav the same thing with someonevnippont at their heels. I just dont think beating fed means all that much in the grand scheme of things but I'd be happy be to be proven wrong
 
#49
Yeah but they gave him pretty much a good fight and for many years stopped him from winning slam. You have to admit that they dont hav the same thing with someonevnippont at their heels. I just dont think beating fed means all that much in the grand scheme of things but I'd be happy be to be proven wrong
They are not quite at their heels but they will be soon. I probably disagree with you on this but you know I respect your opinion, and regardless you are always civil and give well thought out analysis.
 
Top