What does it say about today's talent that Federer was forced to play 'til 40?

Mediterranean Might

Professional
His hand was forced because the also-rans had no legitimate younger competition.

That's the point...
Silly point because they had each other plus the other greatest player of all time (even if older) to compete with for their whole careers…

Edit: Also young Nadal was beating and had a strong H2H against peak Federer during his absolute best years and before Nadal hit his own peak
 

Adman

Rookie
"Forced" is a ridiculous word to use when one gets $50.000.000 a year - but how would you know
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
didnt connors and rosewall do similar?
great players are great players and some
players games hold up better than others..
 

ffw2

Professional
didnt connors and rosewall do similar?
great players are great players and some
players games hold up better than others..
I mean, outwardly, it may appear that way.

But that's pretty superficial, and removes all context.

Connors was playing like podunk 100-level tourneys to grab some cake late-career dubyas.

Rosewall played a different game, in a different time. Slightly lower stakes as well.

Small differences.
 

beard

Legend
Seriously, how sad is it that he had to lace 'em up and get out there to keep the game respectable—until he was closer to 50 than 30.

Because the rest of the field was so putrid.

There are weak eras...

And then there are Weak Eras. :censored:
I will inform you that Federer is half retired, and that is if you wanna be optimistic... If he play ever again he will be ranked under 200...

I mean he could "play" this way for a decade more... Will you make similar thread when he's 50 and still "play"?
 

ffw2

Professional
I will inform you that Federer is half retired, and that is if you wanna be optimistic... If he play ever again he will be ranked under 200...

I mean he could "play" this way for a decade more... Will you make similar thread when he's 50 and still "play"?
Use 39, if you want. Or even 38.

That's how old Federer was when he last trashed Djokovic, right? ;)

But in seriousness, the main thing is that Federer kept going way past his expiration date. Wouldn't have done so if there had been a new generation of ATGs.

But we just never got them. Federer spawned Nadal and Djokovic. What did they spawn? :unsure:
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Federer's, Rosewall's, Connors', Laver's, and Agassi's records vs top players after turning 35 years of age, per Tennis Abstract(sorted by most wins)

records vs top 5
Federer: 9-7, .563
Connors: 3-16, .158
Laver: 2-5, .286
Rosewall: 2-6, .250
Agassi: 0-3, .000

records vs top 10
Federer: 25-16, .610
Rosewall, 7-12, .368
Connors: 6-21, .222
Laver: 3-10, .231
Agassi: 2-4, .333

Note: This isn't fair to Rosewall, since the computer rankings didn't even come out until he was 38 years old.
Let's look at Rosewall's and Federer's records vs top players after turning 38:
records vs top 5

Rosewall: 2-6, .250
Federer: 2-7, .222

records vs top 10
Federer: 9-12, .429
Rosewall: 7-12, .368
 

BGod

Legend
Federer's, Rosewall's, Connors', Laver's, and Agassi's records vs top players after turning 35 years of age, per Tennis Abstract(sorted by most wins)

records vs top 5
Federer: 9-7, .563
Connors: 3-16, .158
Laver: 2-5, .286
Rosewall: 2-6, .250
Agassi: 0-3, .000

records vs top 10
Federer: 25-16, .610
Rosewall, 7-12, .368
Connors: 6-21, .222
Laver: 3-10, .231
Agassi: 2-4, .333

Note: This isn't fair to Rosewall, since the computer rankings didn't even come out until he was 38 years old.
Let's look at Rosewall's and Federer's records vs top players after turning 38:
records vs top 5

Rosewall: 2-6, .250
Federer: 2-7, .222

records vs top 10
Federer: 9-12, .429
Rosewall: 7-12, .368
Doing Agassi dirty there. Those 3 losses were to Federer in a Slam Final, a 3 set Final loss to Nadal and year end indoor loss to Davydenko after which he pulled out of the remaining matches. Absolutely nothing to gain from that 0-3. If you extend to his record at 30+ it is much more reasonable.

As for ancient Rosewall, half of those losses were in Slam Finals to #1 seed Connors and 17 years younger Tanner. He made four Slam Semis at an age older than Federer's last.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I honestly don't think he would've lasted this long without Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine him sitting on 16 Slams even at 30/31 and literally noone chasing him. I don't know how you can maintain the same level of motivation.
 

ffw2

Professional
Federer's, Rosewall's, Connors', Laver's, and Agassi's records vs top players after turning 35 years of age, per Tennis Abstract(sorted by most wins)

records vs top 5
Federer: 9-7, .563
Connors: 3-16, .158
Laver: 2-5, .286
Rosewall: 2-6, .250
Agassi: 0-3, .000

records vs top 10
Federer: 25-16, .610
Rosewall, 7-12, .368
Connors: 6-21, .222
Laver: 3-10, .231
Agassi: 2-4, .333

Note: This isn't fair to Rosewall, since the computer rankings didn't even come out until he was 38 years old.
Let's look at Rosewall's and Federer's records vs top players after turning 38:
records vs top 5

Rosewall: 2-6, .250
Federer: 2-7, .222

records vs top 10
Federer: 9-12, .429
Rosewall: 7-12, .368
Thanks for these.

Should probably be noted tho that today's world #100 would likely straight-set the #1 of the late '60s, conceding maybe two games.

I honestly don't think he would've lasted this long without Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine him sitting on 16 Slams even at 30/31 and literally noone chasing him. I don't know how you can maintain the same level of motivation.
Possibly. But he wouldn't have had to if they had even reasonably respectable younger opposition.
 

BGod

Legend
I honestly don't think he would've lasted this long without Nadal and Djokovic. Imagine him sitting on 16 Slams even at 30/31 and literally noone chasing him. I don't know how you can maintain the same level of motivation.
One of my favourite hypotheticals is if Federer wins the 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 USO and 2011 USO.

In such a scenario, not only would he of had a ludicrous 7 consecutive Wimbledon and 6 straight USO crowns (7 total) but he would have taken a Slam each away from Nadal and Novak while the tally would be as so after his 2012 Wimbledon title:

Federer-20
Nadal-10
Novak-4

Of course had he not retired similair to Pete he probably wins 2014 Wimbledon and maybe another Slam in 2015, then if 2016 goes the same likely doesn't return for 2017. It's not so much the motivation but his narcissism being secured and rehab to come back for 2017. One decent argument for the 17-18 period is he in a way made up for his 3 mentioned lost Slams however it was done without costing his rivals as much (Nadal an AO yes) and when the writing was already on the wall. I don't think it's a coincidence Novak's resurgence in 18-19 mentally shot Roger losing to Millman and Tsitsipas (USO/AO).

Should probably be noted tho that today's world #100 would likely straight-set the #1 of the late '60s, conceding maybe two games.
What makes you think Cecchinato or Cuevas would handily obliterate Rod Laver playing wooden racquets?

 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Use 39, if you want. Or even 38.

That's how old Federer was when he last trashed Djokovic, right? ;)

But in seriousness, the main thing is that Federer kept going way past his expiration date. Wouldn't have done so if there had been a new generation of ATGs.

But we just never got them. Federer spawned Nadal and Djokovic. What did they spawn? :unsure:
There was not just one missing generation of new great players, but now we are into a third missing generation. Maybe this is it, no more greats on the horizon.
 

beard

Legend
Use 39, if you want. Or even 38.

That's how old Federer was when he last trashed Djokovic, right? ;)

But in seriousness, the main thing is that Federer kept going way past his expiration date. Wouldn't have done so if there had been a new generation of ATGs.

But we just never got them. Federer spawned Nadal and Djokovic. What did they spawn? :unsure:
Federer trashed Novak? Novak doesn't care to push against Fed baring slams...
Bold: And Nadal didn't? And Novak didn't? Sorry to tell you mate, Fed isn't special on this "age" thing, there are even better than him...
 

ffw2

Professional
There was not just one missing generation of new great players, but now we are into a third missing generation. Maybe this is it, no more greats on the horizon.
Interesting.

That may be the case. Just a tectonic generational shift in terms of desire.

"Good enough" may be the new ethereal.
 
Top