I think Federer, regardless of his results next year and for the remainder of this season, should retire in 2014. I know how everyone cites reasons that he should quit now or that he should play as long as he wants but to heck with it, they're all wrong. What Federer should not do is announce that he is retiring months before he actually does, because that would just draw so much attention to him that it would make me viscerally ill. I have considered two scenarios: either a) he should pick a tournament in the fall and make the announcement on the first Sunday or something in the presser. Maybe at Basel in a year's time? or b) he should go out with some type of victory, either beating a rival in a tournament or winning an event and then make the announcement after the fact. However, if Federer qualifies early on for the Barclays, I think he should retire at that event.
Federer Should Retire in 2014
- Thread starter ctoth666
- Start date
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
I'd trust Federer to know when to retire from tennis, whether in 2014, now or in 2016.
He's a proud champion and will not continue playing if he's convinced that he can no longer win the big titles.
He's a proud champion and will not continue playing if he's convinced that he can no longer win the big titles.
he said hes not one of those players that needs to leave on top like sampras did winning us open and admires the way hewitts still going at it, so i dont think hes going to retire based his ranking. if he still loves to play and he feels he has a chance to beat anyone he'll keep at it
also it looks like he might be having a little fun now playing events he usually doesnt play so fans can see him and also playing doubles with one of their hometown players
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Totally agree, especially knowing how sensitive he is...
Death Master
Banned
did I say he can retire?
Kenshin
Semi-Pro
The promblem for Federer and also everone for this matter is that winning a slam is really, really tough at this moment. Djokovic in-prime is struggling to win more than one grandslam these past two years. So I don't think his retirement hinges on him winning a grandslam.
Vcore89
Talk Tennis Guru
Goodbye to slams for Novak just like Roger did (at least he won RG in Rafa's absence--he would have been condemn had he not won it that year AND he still got Wimby 2012!) after having a family. Rafa however, is not yet taking the bait. Being a family man really makes a world of difference (diminishing returns, sadly).
Last edited:
Kenshin
Semi-Pro
But having a family has helped Roger to keep on playing though. He always says he wants his daughters to see him play. It motivates him to keep on playing.
Who Am I?
Banned
But his family also started his first major decline in 2010.
Kenshin
Semi-Pro
I think his decline would have started in around 2010 even if he has a family or not. And he has to deal with prime-Nadal, prime-Djokovic and prime-Murray.
Death Master
Banned
Who Am I?
Banned
Well it's not like he was losing to prime Nadal, prime Murray and prime Nole in slams. He lost to Soderling, berdych in QFs and pre prime Nole in 2010. This is the guy who made all 4 slam finals the previous year. Having kids before time unfortunately cost him a few titles and at least a couple of slams.
Vcore89
Talk Tennis Guru
Not on those terms. Everyone (no matter the age), improves till they hit plateau, gets over the rut, hits peak, holds peak for as long as they can and then comes the descent; there can only be diminishing returns. Aren't you a Spartan Warrior (even the Gladiators must succumb to...)?
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Not on those terms. Everyone (no matter the age), improves till they hit plateau, gets over the rut, hits peak, holds peak for as long as they can and then comes the descent; there can only be diminishing returns. Aren't you a Spartan Warrior (even the Gladiators must succumb to...)?
No, this view is much too simplistic. It's a common mistake on this board, but it's still a mistake. It just doesn't make sense to talk of "peak" and "prime" in anything but the most general of terms. (Well, prime makes some sense, but peak isn't a subset of prime that occupies a determinate period of time, but an occasional set of top-quality performances).
Players' careers don't always follow a bell curve in the way in which you describe. What you say leaves out fluctuations of form that are in fact occurring at all times. Agassi was better in 2001 than he had been in 1997 by a long way, and yet he was also better in 1988 than in 1997. Within these years, he had some good matches and some bad ones, some good spells, and some bad ones.
Of course, players take a while to mature and eventually decline. But you described it in far too simplistic a manner.
Omega_7000
Legend
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Vcore89
Talk Tennis Guru
Probably, you wouldn't think I specifically left out the ''in his prime/their primes'' parameters?:-|
I agree with you on this one. People should STFU, and let Fed, or any player for that matter retire when they damn well want to.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Oh no!!!...I think I'm going to get VISCERALLY ILL !!!
Oh, and I have a 3rd scenario:
Federer's fanboys go shit in their hats while Fed continues to play AND ENJOY himself up until a retirement age of HIS choosing.....
....his life: what a novel idea, eh?
Good call! It's one thing to get ill but you definitely don't want to get viscerally ill - that's the worst : )
Oh, and I have a 3rd scenario:
Federer's fanboys go shit in their hats while Fed continues to play AND ENJOY himself up until a retirement age of HIS choosing.....
....his life: what a novel idea, eh?
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
I disagree. Because whether Federer cares or not, for him to continue to play well below his own highest standard is going to detract from the rest of the tour. It's going to constantly be about Federer's struggles and not other people's successes. I mean, if Federer were to fall outside of the top ten, he wouldn't be getting byes at masters events. Are they going to still be televising all of his matches? Are they going to take him off of the show courts? I mean, Federer can't be a middle-of-the-pack player now, just because of what he's accomplished. It doesn't work like that. He's not going to show up to events just to win a few rounds and then move on to the next city. He's not going to add five tournaments a year to his schedule to make up rankings points. He can't just keep chugging along, really.
