Federer, Sampras, and dealing with decline

[ScentOfDefeat]

First of all, I'm a fan of both Federer and Sampras. I just thought that, for this post, I would analyze Federer's psychological weakness as compared to what I believe was one of Pete Sampras' strengths. I'm not saying Sampras is a better player than Federer. Both careers speak for themselves. But I thought it would be interesting to compare both players' decline. My argument is that Sampras handled decline more realistically than Federer. Here it goes:

If there's one thing you can say when comparing Federer to Sampras is that the Swiss is too proud to quit the game at the top of his ability. Sampras was a more pragmatic character, you could clearly see he didn't enjoy losing at all and that he didn't believe in staying around when his game was subpar. Federer seems to believe that his abilities are so innate that he can win just about anything if his game comes together. I think Federer might've inherited a bad habit from his very dominant and pretty much unchallenged career (or rather, only challenged by one player whilst he was dominating the field and then two other players when he was already declining) which makes him believe in his own godlike talent, even when it's not there anymore. The "god delusion": that's his weakness. He accepts defeat because he's convinced his form will eventually return. Sampras, whilst being less accomplished than Federer, never really believed he couldn't be beaten by a huge array of top 50 players on any given day. Unlike Federer, at his peak he wasn't expected to win every match easily or win 3 Slams a year easily. If you were a Sampras fan in the 90's you wouldn't sleep at night as soundly as a Federer fan would from 2003 up until 2007. For a long time, there was hardly anything to worry about except for Nadal. Sampras knew the 2002 US Open was his swan song. He prepared for it thoroughly, knowing that all the hard work and talent he poured out would stay on that court and wouldn't leave with him at the end of the match. Federer, like Alexander the Great, was so dominant that he allowed himself to believe in his own "genius". Sampras' strength came from never doubting his own fragility.

Would anyone like to discuss this?

 

[snowpuppy]

I think this notion is just absurd. First of all, any athlete reaching the top of his/her sport needs and ego. Federer is not "delusional" as you make him out to be a megalomaniac. He made a choice to continue to his career in tennis despite his age and to compete still need a certain amount of faith in this own game to do so. If he does not have that then he really should retire.

Sampra did not retire at the top of his game, he retired at an emotional height but his ranking has already suffered. Roger on the other hand was not only the wimbledon champ a year ago but recaptured the #1 ranking. You want him to hang his racquet a year late just because he lost early in a few slams? I'd say if he did choose to retire after his last big win or even last year end having achieved what he had then he is the ego manic you say he is. At which point he is more obsess about his legacy than playing the game he loves. Seems to me Sampras love winning and Federer loves tennis.

And all these talk about Federer being mentally weak is absurd. His grand slam semi, qtr record speaks for itself. You don't get that type of consistency by being mentally weak, just ask guys like safin. He put in the same amount of hard work and resolve as nadal, djokovic, sampras and all the likes and it just blows my mind how people think Federer has been winning while filing his nails on his spare time 2003-2007 and is collapsing now cause his nails just broke.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I would just like to add that Sampras had a worse career but with a fairytale epilogue (because of his pragmatic approach) while Federer has had the best career of the two but with a seemingly disappointing and heartbreaking decline.

What's better/worse? The public and drawn out decline of a godlike player or the glorious exit of the least accomplished (but still amazing) player?

(all of this assuming Federer will not end his career with an unlikely fairytale win at Wimbledon)

 

[Michael Lesbowicz]

Sounds right.

This needs a correction:

"...the Swiss is too proud to quit the game at the top of his ability."

Or what he thinks is the top of his ability.
He no longer seems to play his best. His glory days are over.
Four Grand Slam tournaments and he did not reach the final of any of them.
I doubt we will ever see Federer in a Grand Slam final again.
Because of his career and achievements, he does not have anything
to prove anymore, and that takes away part of the motivation to win.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras still had the "ace in the hole" GOAT serve to keep him going when his physical game left him.

Pete was much better at overwhelming his opponents and taking any comfort zone they wanted away.

Fed doesn't have the luxury of a weapon like that. Pete was a guy who WANTED to play those main rivals (he lived for that and raised his level for that while he looked bored playing bottom feeders) as well, unlike Roger who would be perfectly happy AVOIDING them at this point in his career

Pete (even though he was extremely inconsistent after 2000 Wimbledon) was a MUCH deadlier player in his 30s than Roger. You just never knew when Sampras was going to go off and blow you off the court. Fed doesn't scare guys anymore like Pete did

 

[MTF07]

Sampras still had the "ace in the hole" GOAT serve to keep him going when his physical game left him.

Pete was much better at overwhelming his opponents and taking any comfort zone they wanted away.

Fed doesn't have the luxury of a weapon like that. Pete was a guy who WANTED to play those main rivals (he lived for that and raised his level for that while he looked bored playing bottom feeders) as well, unlike Roger who would be perfectly happy AVOIDING them at this point in his career

Pete (even though he was extremely inconsistent after 2000 Wimbledon) was a MUCH deadlier player in his 30s than Roger. You just never knew when Sampras was going to go off and blow you off the court. Fed doesn't scare guys anymore like Pete did

Pete was getting blown off the court by the likes of Safin and Hewitt in his 30s. Yeah, he was sooooooooooo dangerous.

Outside of the US Open, Sampras was a joke in his 30s.

 

[90's Clay]

Pete was getting blown off the court by the likes of Safin and Hewitt in his 30s. Yeah, he was sooooooooooo dangerous.

Outside of the US Open, Sampras was a joke in his 30s.

He was also whipping on Safin, Roddick, Rafter, Agassi etc. at the USO as well.

While Fed is getting blown off the court by.... Robredo. :shock:

 

[MTF07]

He was also whipping on Safin, Roddick, Rafter, Agassi etc. at the USO as well.

While Fed is getting blown off the court by.... Robredo. :shock:

Federer had 15 more winners than Robredo. That's not getting blown off the court. Fed error'd his way off the court.

And yes, we've acknowledged Sampras was good at the US Open in his 30s. But he absolutely SUCKED everywhere else, not winning a single title in over two years. Federer won a major last year and was #1 for an extended period.

 

[dudeski]

He was also whipping on Safin, Roddick, Rafter, Agassi etc. at the USO as well.

While Fed is getting blown off the court by.... Robredo. :shock:

Sampras retired a year younger than Fed is now you dum dum. If he played in 2003 he would lost in the 1st round. So to answer the OP Pete dealt with being old by retiring. Roger deals by using denial and keeps on playing.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think this notion is just absurd. First of all, any athlete reaching the top of his/her sport needs and ego. Federer is not "delusional" as you make him out to be a megalomaniac. He made a choice to continue to his career in tennis despite his age and to compete still need a certain amount of faith in this own game to do so. If he does not have that then he really should retire.

Sampra did not retire at the top of his game, he retired at an emotional height but his ranking has already suffered. Roger on the other hand was not only the wimbledon champ a year ago but recaptured the #1 ranking. You want him to hang his racquet a year late just because he lost early in a few slams? I'd say if he did choose to retire after his last big win or even last year end having achieved what he had then he is the ego manic you say he is. At which point he is more obsess about his legacy than playing the game he loves. Seems to me Sampras love winning and Federer loves tennis.

And all these talk about Federer being mentally weak is absurd. His grand slam semi, qtr record speaks for itself. You don't get that type of consistency by being mentally weak, just ask guys like safin. He put in the same amount of hard work and resolve as nadal, djokovic, sampras and all the likes and it just blows my mind how people think Federer has been winning while filing his nails on his spare time 2003-2007 and is collapsing now cause his nails just broke.

Oh, you must have misunderstood. I didn't say anything about Federer's ego. I just said that a player's career inevitably shapes the way he thinks about the game and his own abilities. There's nothing wrong with Federer continuing to play; I'm not even saying it's a bad career choice or that it tarnishes his legacy in the slightest. I have to disagree with you on the faith issue. Federer doesn't need faith in his game to compete. He needs to play well in order to compete. Faith in your game comes as a result of good play, not the other way around. And I think (of course, I could be wrong) Federer believes that faith in his game is sufficient, even when he's not playing well. And it's contradictory to say he should retire if he doesn't feel he can win big tournaments while at the same time praising him for loving the game instead of loving to win. I think he's still playing to win - and to win big, in Slams - but ignoring (or masking) the decline in his game by believing in his own legendary abilities. It's true he won Wimbledon one year ago, but most people would agree that he hasn't been a favourite in any Slam since then. My argument stands: Sampras' pragmatism (like it or not, "loving to win" vs. "loving tennis" or not) vs. Federer's idealism.

I also didn't say Federer's wins in 2003-2007 were easy and that he was just parading himself. I just said that Federer fans (myself included) were pretty relaxed during that period of utter dominance. Whether it was easy or hard for him is not the point. If it was easy, you could argue he was so much better than the others. If it was hard and he made it look easy, that makes him even greater. So I don't see how you can equate my argument with this bizarre idea that Federer didn't put in the work or that he was mentally weak. All I'm comparing is pragmatism vs. idealism.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Sounds right.

This needs a correction:

"...the Swiss is too proud to quit the game at the top of his ability."

Or what he thinks is the top of his ability.
He no longer seems to play his best. His glory days are over.
Four Grand Slam tournaments and he did not reach the final of any of them.
I doubt we will ever see Federer in a Grand Slam final again.
Because of his career and achievements, he does not have anything
to prove anymore, and that takes away part of the motivation to win.

Well spotted. But that's exactly why I say it's Federer's idealism vs. Sampras' pragmatism. Federer believes in an idealized version of himself that could - at any given time - reincarnate in his body and make him win tournaments like it's 2003-2007. That's why the legendary status is so tricky. Ask Achilles or Napoleon.

 

[BLX_Andy]

Sounds right.

This needs a correction:

"...the Swiss is too proud to quit the game at the top of his ability."

Or what he thinks is the top of his ability.
He no longer seems to play his best. His glory days are over.
Four Grand Slam tournaments and he did not reach the final of any of them.
I doubt we will ever see Federer in a Grand Slam final again.
Because of his career and achievements, he does not have anything
to prove anymore, and that takes away part of the motivation to win.

Yeah. Other than the Singles Gold Medal there's nothing else. If you don't include Doubles and Mixed Doubles Grand Slams.

 

[josofo]

Sampras retired a year younger than Fed is now you dum dum. If he played in 2003 he would lost in the 1st round. So to answer the OP Pete dealt with being old by retiring. Roger deals by using denial and keeps on playing.

ya cuz most people who win the a major lose the first round the next year:roll:

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Sampras retired a year younger than Fed is now you dum dum. If he played in 2003 he would lost in the 1st round. So to answer the OP Pete dealt with being old by retiring. Roger deals by using denial and keeps on playing.

That seems about right.

 

[RF20Lennon]

I think so! I think Fed is still in the delusion that his form will return just like it did for so many years. "I will play better, I know I can"- from the press conference today. I still think he believes his old form will come back and he's stubborn. See Robredo, Haas and Hewitt have nothing to lose so they can keep going. Fed has a legacy to protect.

 

[fednad]

Sampras still had the "ace in the hole" GOAT serve to keep him going when his physical game left him.

Pete was much better at overwhelming his opponents and taking any comfort zone they wanted away.

Fed doesn't have the luxury of a weapon like that. Pete was a guy who WANTED to play those main rivals (he lived for that and raised his level for that while he looked bored playing bottom feeders) as well, unlike Roger who would be perfectly happy AVOIDING them at this point in his career

Pete (even though he was extremely inconsistent after 2000 Wimbledon) was a MUCH deadlier player in his 30s than Roger. You just never knew when Sampras was going to go off and blow you off the court. Fed doesn't scare guys anymore like Pete did

When did Pete tell you that?
At breakfast? Lunch? Dinner?

 

[fednad]

He was also whipping on Safin, Roddick, Rafter, Agassi etc. at the USO as well.

While Fed is getting blown off the court by.... Robredo. :shock:

Heard this name - "George Bastl" ?

 

[90's Clay]

When did Pete tell you that?
At breakfast? Lunch? Dinner?

he didn't have personally tell me, you just watched it with your own two eyes. Sampras' level always raised when he saw Andre on the other side of the net. His level raised when he saw Rafter etc.


.... and we know about the Fedal rivalry.. No need to go into that. Fed just freezes solid when he sees Rafa on the other side of the net. Hell he freezes solid when he sees Nadal in the next round. ROFLMAO

 

[MTF07]

Sampras froze whenever he saw traces of red dirt...

Now THAT is sad.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras froze whenever he saw traces of red dirt...

Now THAT is sad.

Not as bad as a guy freezing at the sight of another for 10 years on ALL Surface except indoors

 

[MTF07]

Not as bad as a guy freezing at the sight of another for 10 years on ALL Surface except indoors

Federer leads Nadal 2-1 on grass and fought back valiantly in the 2008 Wimbledon final from down 2 sets to 1. Pretty sure he never froze there, bro.

And yes, being owned by everyone on one surface is far, far worse than being owned by an all time great player.

 

[insideguy]

Fed is not much different than many athletes. How many boxers kept coming back to get hit in the head far past their prime? Willie Mays didnt retire when he should have. Sampras did. So did Graf. But I dont know some guys just love the competetion . Cant hold that against them. I dont think it really affects any legacy. No one remember Willie Mays running around clueless in the outfield his last year. Or Ali getting beat up when he was old. They just remember them being great.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Oh, you must have misunderstood. I didn't say anything about Federer's ego.

You should give up the goose on this point because it's really obvious from your initial post that you have a pretty clear opinion about Federer's ego - you just tried to obfuscate the fact in your post.

A little over a year ago Federer was ranked #1 and had won a 7th Wimbledon. That was 18 months after many had said he would never win another major or get back to #1.

Sure this lull is a lull but I doubt we've seen the last of him. This wasn't a bad loss in the sense he was simply unable to beat an opponent, it was a bad loss because he played so utterly sub-par compared to even his average day this year, let alone last year.

There's a big difference between not being able to beat someone and playing terribly. He recognises this, as will his coaches. He's rattled for sure but he's shown many times how good he is as wiping the slate clean and coming back fresh. He clearly loves playing still so it is a completely different scenario to Sampras.

 

[Goosehead]

I would just like to add that Sampras had a worse career but with a fairytale epilogue (because of his pragmatic approach) while Federer has had the best career of the two but with a seemingly disappointing and heartbreaking decline.

What's better/worse? The public and drawn out decline of a godlike player or the glorious exit of the least accomplished (but still amazing) player?

(all of this assuming Federer will not end his career with an unlikely fairytale win at Wimbledon)

Sampras didn't even retire after the 2002 u s open..he didn't retire until 2003 when he couldn't be bothered with the training any more.

 

[Hops]

See Robredo, Haas and Hewitt have nothing to lose so they can keep going. Fed has a legacy to protect.

Fed's legacy is not going to be harmed by this or any other losses from this point on. In 10 years no one will give a **** that he lost to Robredo today. Was Sampras' legacy ruined by the loss to Bastl? Please. Fed is 32; most players - even all-time greats - are either retired or on their last legs at this point. Fed's no different - it's just that he was at such a high level for so long it's jarring to see him look mortal.

 

[90's Clay]

Fed's legacy is not going to be harmed by this or any other losses from this point on. In 10 years no one will give a **** that he lost to Robredo today. Was Sampras' legacy ruined by the loss to Bastl? please.

He's 32. Most players - even all-time greats - are either retired or on their last legs at this point. Fed's no different - it's just that he was at such a high level for so long it's jarring to see him look mortal.

People keep bringing it up here every other day. ROFLMAO.

I guess us Sampras fans can bring up these weird losses to Stakhovky and Robredo as well? of back to back slams?

 

[papertank]

Sampras refused to play when he was anything less than at the top of his game, and Federer is the one with the ego? If anything, the fact that Federer is still willing to play while in decline says he DOESN'T have an inflated ego. He doesn't care about protecting meaningless statistics, he just loves the game of tennis and wants to continue to play. I think OP is seriously thinking the wrong way about this (if it's not a troll post).

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras refused to play when he was anything less than at the top of his game, and Federer is the one with the ego? If anything, the fact that Federer is still willing to play while in decline says he DOESN'T have an inflated ego. He doesn't care about protecting meaningless statistics, he just loves the game of tennis and wants to continue to play. I think OP is seriously thinking the wrong way about this (if it's not a troll post).

Sampras continued to play for 2 years even when he fell out of the top 10 and was a complete SHELL of his former self after 2000 and ended his career with a slam win vs. the main rival of his career. :shock:


Sampras managed it despite being wayyyy past his prime (4-5 years past his prime probably). Now I want to see if Federer can manage. Lets see what hes really made of.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

sampras at his 30s never was nº1 like fed , and the competition in that moment was worst than federer`s competition in 2011-2012.

federer and sampras have many many many similar careers , federer lost to stak the same day than pistol lost to bastl

 

[TheFifthSet]

Not as bad as a guy freezing at the sight of another for 10 years on ALL Surface except indoors

Clay is 40% of the ATP tour. That means, on average, a player plays about 40% of their matches on clay, whereas only 3% of Federers matches in his career have been played against Nadal.
No but yeah, you're making perfect sense.

 

[90's Clay]

sampras at his 30s never was nº1 like fed , and the competition in that moment was worst than federer`s competition in 2011-2012.

federer and sampras have many many many similar careers , federer lost to stak the same day than pistol lost to bastl

He played Rafter, Safin, Agassi, Hewitt back to back to back to back at the Open. . Thats a draw from hell. Not sure how thats weak.

Federer SHOULD be able to get by freakin Robredo and Stakovksy. He hasn't been continuously going out to the elite all year. Hes losing to guys he should beat even if hes not playing his A game or even B game

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

He played Rafter, Safin, Agassi, Hewitt back to back to back to back. Thats a draw from hell. Not sure how thats weak.

I am talking of be nº1 in his 30 and 31 years old, not only an slam....

federer mantained that level for near 1 year since basel 2011 to cincinatti 2012.

federer`s longevity is better than pistol`s

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

federer said too that he needs to care his body too , and that he can`t trai so well like in other years too.

in 2012 federer destroyed all his physicall

 

[90's Clay]

Clay is 40% of the ATP tour. That means, on average, a player plays about 40% of their matches on clay, whereas only 3% of Federers matches in his career have been played against Nadal.
No but yeah, you're making perfect sense.

Im sorry I forgot Fed has only lost to Nadal on clay. My bad..

 

[Hops]

People keep bringing it up here every other day. ROFLMAO. I guess us Sampras fans can bring up these weird losses to Stakhovky and Robredo as well? of back to back slams?

Sure why not. While you're at it don't forget Laver crashing out to Taylor and Ralston in 1970.

 

[90's Clay]

I am talking of be nº1 in his 30 and 31 years old, not only an slam....

federer mantained that level for near 1 year since basel 2011 to cincinatti 2012.

federer`s longevity is better than pistol`s

Sampras won his first slam and last slam 12 years apart. Hows that for longevity.

 

[fednad]

he didn't have personally tell me, you just watched it with your own two eyes. Sampras' level always raised when he saw Andre on the other side of the net. His level raised when he saw Rafter etc.


.... and we know about the Fedal rivalry.. No need to go into that. Fed just freezes solid when he sees Rafa on the other side of the net. Hell he freezes solid when he sees Nadal in the next round. ROFLMAO

You confirmed it. Anyway, I always knew that Shampoo (read Sampras) had crush on Andre's man-boobs and his level would be up when he saw him.

That is ok. Get up now. You have laughed enough at your own joke.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

Sampras won his first slam and last slam 12 years apart. Hows that for longevity.

winning an slam is not the same thing , agassi won an slam with 33 too.

but the nº1 is another history , is not only 1 slam , it`s play in a very high level many time and sampras with the excpetion on the 2002 us open , never could mantain a high level of play

 

[Hops]

Federer SHOULD be able to get by freakin Robredo and Stakovksy. He hasn't been continuously going out to the elite all year. Hes losing to guys he should beat even if hes not playing his A game or even B game

What makes you believe his A game still exists?

Sampras was losing to the Robredo's and Stakovksy's of the ATP all throughout 2001-02. And as mentioned Fed is now a year older than Sampras was when Pete retired. These so called bad losses are not a surprise; they're expected. He's 32.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Im sorry I forgot Fed has only lost to Nadal on clay. My bad..

Interesting reading comprehension. I like how you totally realized what I was getting at.

 

[Hops]

Sampras refused to play when he was anything less than at the top of his game

what? Pete slogged it out for more than two years after slam #13, did not win another title, and saw his ranking plummet outside the top ten before he caught lightning in a bottle at the '02 USO. At that tournament he was seeded #17.

 

[tudwell]

Sampras continued to play for 2 years even when he fell out of the top 10 and was a complete SHELL of his former self after 2000 and ended his career with a slam win vs. the main rival of his career. :shock:


Sampras managed it despite being wayyyy past his prime (4-5 years past his prime probably). Now I want to see if Federer can manage. Lets see what hes really made of.

Sampras wasn't even playing at Fed's age. Federer has shown us time and time again what he's made of. He has nothing more to prove and nothing he does from here on out will detract from his legacy.

 

[papertank]

Sampras continued to play for 2 years even when he fell out of the top 10 and was a complete SHELL of his former self after 2000 and ended his career with a slam win vs. the main rival of his career. :shock:


Sampras managed it despite being wayyyy past his prime (4-5 years past his prime probably). Now I want to see if Federer can manage. Lets see what hes really made of.

I was just going by the OP's assumption that Sampras refused to play at anything less than his best. But even that's not true.

 

[ASH1485]

i wish Federer can retire the way Sampras did, after the Robredo match i know this is not going to happen.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Pete's decline was just as bad if not worse than Fed's. Of course Pete ended it on the highest note possible, so good for him. I do think what made Pete dangerous even when he sucked asides from the obvious nastiness of his serve was that his forehand was equally as filthy. Pete wasn't looking to extend rallies he was always looking to end them. Pete was the personification of first strike aggressive tennis. While Fed may have the best forehand in the history of tennis, I don't think he's going around thinking I'm going to bust you up with my forehand when clearly that was exactly what Sampras was thinking. Pete was still dangerous because his game was aggressive and he had a well defined strategy even as his body gave out. Fed's game isn't built the same way as Pete's and even though it gave him the better overall results his game may not be suited to have that last hurrah like Pete's was. I think Pete felt like if hung around long enough his venomous S&V and brutal forehand would be enough to get one more which proved to be true. With Fed his whole game has to click which is a lot less likely to happen at this point so hanging around may not give him that glorious exit.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Pete's decline was just as bad if not worse than Fed's. Of course Pete ended it on the highest note possible, so good for him. I do think what made Pete dangerous even when he sucked asides from the obvious nastiness of his serve was that his forehand was equally as filthy. Pete wasn't looking to extend rallies he was always looking to end them. Pete was the personification of first strike aggressive tennis. While Fed may have the best forehand in the history of tennis, I don't think he's going around thinking I'm going to bust you up with my forehand when clearly that was exactly what Sampras was thinking. Pete was still dangerous because his game was aggressive and he had a well defined strategy even as his body gave out. Fed's game isn't built the same way as Pete's and even though it gave him the better overall results his game may not be suited to have that last hurrah like Pete's was. I think Pete felt like if hung around long enough his venomous S&V and brutal forehand would be enough to get one more which proved to be true. With Fed his whole game has to click which is a lot less likely to happen at this point so hanging around may not give him that glorious exit.

Interesting post & analysis.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I was just going by the OP's assumption that Sampras refused to play at anything less than his best. But even that's not true.

I didn't say he refused, I said he hated to. That's why he decided to put in the work that was necessary for a last hurrah. He looked all of his ugly and disappointing defeats in the face and said "I'll have the last word".

 

[10is]

Pete's decline was just as bad if not worse than Fed's. Of course Pete ended it on the highest note possible, so good for him. I do think what made Pete dangerous even when he sucked asides from the obvious nastiness of his serve was that his forehand was equally as filthy. Pete wasn't looking to extend rallies he was always looking to end them. Pete was the personification of first strike aggressive tennis. While Fed may have the best forehand in the history of tennis, I don't think he's going around thinking I'm going to bust you up with my forehand when clearly that was exactly what Sampras was thinking. Pete was still dangerous because his game was aggressive and he had a well defined strategy even as his body gave out. Fed's game isn't built the same way as Pete's and even though it gave him the better overall results his game may not be suited to have that last hurrah like Pete's was. I think Pete felt like if hung around long enough his venomous S&V and brutal forehand would be enough to get one more which proved to be true. With Fed his whole game has to click which is a lot less likely to happen at this point so hanging around may not give him that glorious exit.

You are forgetting the fact that the courts at the Open are now noticably slower. Pete's forehand clicked at the Open when he won otherwise his forehand wasn't as near brutal as it was in his prime, similar to how Federer's even more brutal forehand declined after 2007.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

You should give up the goose on this point because it's really obvious from your initial post that you have a pretty clear opinion about Federer's ego - you just tried to obfuscate the fact in your post.

A little over a year ago Federer was ranked #1 and had won a 7th Wimbledon. That was 18 months after many had said he would never win another major or get back to #1.

Sure this lull is a lull but I doubt we've seen the last of him. This wasn't a bad loss in the sense he was simply unable to beat an opponent, it was a bad loss because he played so utterly sub-par compared to even his average day this year, let alone last year.

There's a big difference between not being able to beat someone and playing terribly. He recognises this, as will his coaches. He's rattled for sure but he's shown many times how good he is as wiping the slate clean and coming back fresh. He clearly loves playing still so it is a completely different scenario to Sampras.

I don't know why people insist I'm talking about his ego. I'm talking about the way his own career and expectations built him as a player. I'm speaking sociology and you're accusing me of psychology. I won't give up the goose on this one because there's no goose to give up. When you say you "doubt we've seen the last of him", that to me means you're expecting a surge of form from him that we haven't seen lately. Nothing wrong with that. But it's still based on an idealized image of Federer that he (as many of us fans) expect to make its way back as if by miracle. Because of Federer's brilliant career we're almost bound to think this is outrageous, that he can't NOT have it in him anymore, that there's no reason his injury-free body can't reproduce the level we expect of him. Playing terribly, as you say, is an integral part of the declining process, not a "bad habit" that you can kick with training. He's not in the learning curve anymore, where any progress becomes ingrained in his play.

And while we're waiting for his tennis to come back, we forget to comment on the most natural of processes: that any player, even a player as dominant as Federer, will eventually be surpassed. Sooner or later, god'll cut you down.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Sampras refused to play when he was anything less than at the top of his game, and Federer is the one with the ego? If anything, the fact that Federer is still willing to play while in decline says he DOESN'T have an inflated ego. He doesn't care about protecting meaningless statistics, he just loves the game of tennis and wants to continue to play. I think OP is seriously thinking the wrong way about this (if it's not a troll post).

Again, not talking about ego at all. I wouldn't dare to comment on someone's personality when I don't even know them. I can say the same thing about Napoleon: he's usually characterized as the example of a huge ego (in a tiny body), even by renowned historians. Was his defeat at Waterloo some sort of heavenly justice to punish his ego? No, I think that's the wrong way of thinking about it. He had been used to winning in the battlefield. He hadn't lost any battles. There was no reason to believe that this one battle would be his demise. It's not a matter of ego, it's a matter of habit. But everything has an end. All Sampras did was create his own end, on his own terms. That's why I say he was pragmatic.

Why would Federer want to protect "meaningless statistics"? He has none to protect! He has already done more than Sampras across the board.