Should Roger Federer Contemplate Retirement After 2012

Borg retired early. Sampras retired at 31. One of my favourite films is American Gangster and the scene were Frank Lucas is in Thailand and his supplier tells him 'Quitting while your ahead is different to quitting'

Roger is not getting any younger and this year will turn 31. Is still enough in the game for him to continue on beyond 2012? This year will no doubt see his last opportunity to win Gold at the Olympics and also 3 Slams left in this season.

I do wonder how he manages to keep his hunger and desire to still get up, train hard and still perform at tournaments around the world. Your a 16-time Slam champion. Career Grand Slam in the bag and in most courts the GOAT.

Is there enough in the game for Federer to achieve slam success? Looking at the recent Australian Open and the final which showed that the game has past him by because the art of shot-making is a dying art and for Federer to try and find something different to achieve success is beyond limited. The net play has improved and also the BH has shown some great consistency compared in recent years.

Where do you see Federer's best chance of Slam success? Do you think he has thought about retirement seriously this year?

For me his best chance of success would be at Wimbledon. I think he may forfeit success on Clay as he may look upon Nadal and Djokovic really slugging it out and taking physical tolls on each other which would leave Wimbledon as a realistic chance of success. Maybe just maybe Flushing Meadows might offer something.

Should he play beyond 2012?

Let's put it this way, imagine Nadal and Djoko having a bad day or being as fit as in season's end....Fed could still have won 7 more slams since A0 10. In my view, he should continue.

I think FO 2011 and USO 2011 were there for the taking. However, I do think at Wimbledon Tsonga deserves credit for how he transfered the form of Queens where the courts were ultra quick to the slow pace of Wimbledon. I think Federer was outperformed there from a typical grass court peformance by where Tsonga actually shrunk the court and really limited Federer's options and played a very solid net game.

I do agree that how fit Djokovic and Nadal keep themselves will be integral to what Roger can win.

he should continue and he will

legendkillar wrote:I think FO 2011 and USO 2011 were there for the taking. However, I do think at Wimbledon Tsonga deserves credit for how he transfered the form of Queens where the courts were ultra quick to the slow pace of Wimbledon. I think Federer was outperformed there from a typical grass court peformance by where Tsonga actually shrunk the court and really limited Federer's options and played a very solid net game.

I do agree that how fit Djokovic and Nadal keep themselves will be integral to what Roger can win.

Really? Tell us how there were there for the taking.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think FO 2011 and USO 2011 were there for the taking. However, I do think at Wimbledon Tsonga deserves credit for how he transfered the form of Queens where the courts were ultra quick to the slow pace of Wimbledon. I think Federer was outperformed there from a typical grass court peformance by where Tsonga actually shrunk the court and really limited Federer's options and played a very solid net game.

I do agree that how fit Djokovic and Nadal keep themselves will be integral to what Roger can win.

Really? Tell us how there were there for the taking.

Indeed.

Are you telling me that Nadal played the better tennis leading up to the FO final? Because that would be wishful and rather bias thinking.

Again Federer was playing the better tennis in New York and mentally capitulated against Djokovic. A far more concentrated Federer would've seen that match out.

So in your infinite wisdom do disclose where Nadal played better than Federer over a period of time in 2011?

So Legendkiller, according to you:

1. Federer was favourite to win the FO 2011 and was the favourite in the finals against Nadal.

2. Was favourite to win the USO 2011 and had he made the finals would have been favourite against Nadal.

Well just need a quick clarification on the above before we proceed.

Don't answer a question with more questions.

Answer my question above and then we can proceed.

legendkillar wrote:Should he play beyond 2012?

I think he should continue to play as long as he is still enjoying it. He has been remarkably injury free and obviously loves the game. How long he plays depends on how well he can handle not doing as well as he used to. Personally I hope he carries on for a year or two at least.

The saga of unrequited love continues.

The 'I Miss You' missive has been penned.

SA ... what would you want him to do?

by legendkillar Today at 2:04 am

.Don't answer a question with more questions.

Answer my question above and then we can proceed

What question above? I don't see a question. I see a clear case of someone lacking in tennis knowledge and facts. Please amuse me on how exactly how both the FO and USO was there for the taking for Federer.

disagree about FO 2011 LK. While Nadal was a long way off his best last year, on clay I'd back Nadal to beat Federer 99 times out of 100, his strengths match up perfectly to Fed's weaknesses. US 2011 he should have won the semi, lest we forget after the incredible/lucky return on MP he then missed three easy forehands to be broken back, but again not sure he'd have beaten Nadal in the final.

For Federer to win another slam I believe he has to avoid Nadal, at least.

Right seemingly as you need a hand walk through on points, and I am assuming you have some form of general intelligence (laughable thought)

So at the FO leading to the final, Nadal dropped 2 sets compared to Federer's 1 and even conceded 78 games compared to Federer's 70. So enlighten me to your point.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:disagree about FO 2011 LK. While Nadal was a long way off his best last year, on clay I'd back Nadal to beat Federer 99 times out of 100, his strengths match up perfectly to Fed's weaknesses. US 2011 he should have won the semi, lest we forget after the incredible/lucky return on MP he then missed three easy forehands to be broken back, but again not sure he'd have beaten Nadal in the final.

For Federer to win another slam I believe he has to avoid Nadal, at least.

Disagree there MFC

Nadal against Federer on untested Flushing Meadows HC?

Like I said Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO.

For some reason or another there is a mental weakness there more so than ever. If Federer had the same mental strength of years gone by, the outcome might have been different.

Nadal wasn't at his best granted, but to say he played better than Roger leading into that final is a bit short sighted.

legendkillar wrote:Right seemingly as you need a hand walk through on points, and I am assuming you have some form of general intelligence (laughable thought)

So at the FO leading to the final, Nadal dropped 2 sets compared to Federer's 1 and even conceded 78 games compared to Federer's 70. So enlighten me to your point.

This gets funnier.

So Federer drops 1 set to Nadal's 2 and conceded 70 games to Nadal's 78 so he had the slam for the taking? This is an impregnable logic and general lack of intelligence

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Right seemingly as you need a hand walk through on points, and I am assuming you have some form of general intelligence (laughable thought)

So at the FO leading to the final, Nadal dropped 2 sets compared to Federer's 1 and even conceded 78 games compared to Federer's 70. So enlighten me to your point.

This gets funnier.

So Federer drops 1 set to Nadal's 2 and conceded 70 games to Nadal's 78 so he had the slam for the taking? This is an impregnable logic and general lack of intelligence

You dodge points better than Labour.

You are truly wasted here.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Right seemingly as you need a hand walk through on points, and I am assuming you have some form of general intelligence (laughable thought)

So at the FO leading to the final, Nadal dropped 2 sets compared to Federer's 1 and even conceded 78 games compared to Federer's 70. So enlighten me to your point.

This gets funnier.

So Federer drops 1 set to Nadal's 2 and conceded 70 games to Nadal's 78 so he had the slam for the taking? This is an impregnable logic and general lack of intelligence :laugh:

... and you have no numbers to back you up. Why not quote the h2h, when in doubt? It would be the easiest, or FO 2008, or FO 2009, or any of the FO finals where they have met?

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Right seemingly as you need a hand walk through on points, and I am assuming you have some form of general intelligence (laughable thought)

So at the FO leading to the final, Nadal dropped 2 sets compared to Federer's 1 and even conceded 78 games compared to Federer's 70. So enlighten me to your point.

This gets funnier.

So Federer drops 1 set to Nadal's 2 and conceded 70 games to Nadal's 78 so he had the slam for the taking? This is an impregnable logic and general lack of intelligence :laugh:

... and you have no numbers to back you up. Why not quote the h2h, when in doubt? It would be the easiest, or FO 2008, or FO 2009, or any of the FO finals where they have met?

Well i can only await another amusing response from Legendkiller. So at the USO provided Federer had made the finals by taking one of those MPs, he would have lost 3 sets to Nadals' 1 set lost before the finals. Perhaps Legendkiller can entertain us with his recent analysis of that fact and how that then makes the USO Federer's to take using the same pseudo intelligence and logic used for the FO

S_A

Do provide some stats to back your argument against this?

Or go to the H2H

Your lack of intelligence is bewildering.

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Right seemingly as you need a hand walk through on points, and I am assuming you have some form of general intelligence (laughable thought)

So at the FO leading to the final, Nadal dropped 2 sets compared to Federer's 1 and even conceded 78 games compared to Federer's 70. So enlighten me to your point.

This gets funnier.

So Federer drops 1 set to Nadal's 2 and conceded 70 games to Nadal's 78 so he had the slam for the taking? This is an impregnable logic and general lack of intelligence :laugh:

... and you have no numbers to back you up. Why not quote the h2h, when in doubt? It would be the easiest, or FO 2008, or FO 2009, or any of the FO finals where they have met?

No infact, i wouldn't even have to quote any numbers or head to head yet. That will be better left for last. Right now, i want to be amused as much as possible. I always prefer being entertained first then providing the basic tennis education lacking here by Legendkiller, then by you of course.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well i can only await another amusing response from Legendkiller. So at the USO provided Federer had made the finals by taking one of those MPs, he would have lost 3 sets to Nadals' 1 set lost before the finals. Perhaps Legendkiller can entertain us with his recent analysis of that fact and how that then makes the USO Federer's to take using the same pseudo intelligence and logic used for the FO

So did you see the match?

Federer had match points in the 3rd set.

So had he taken them he would've made the final with a loss of one set.

So did we enjoy this education?

legendkillar wrote:S_A

Do provide some stats to back your argument against this?

Or go to the H2H

Your lack of intelligence is bewildering.

Stats to back up what? That i'm more intelligent on this topic than you?

You've provided 2 stats. One which says Nadal lost 2 sets to Federer's 1 at the FO and 78 games to Federer's 70 so Federer had the FO for the taking.
I made mockery of the 1st by gently educating you on how Federer would have lost 3 sets to Nadal's 1 had he made the USO finals.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well i can only await another amusing response from Legendkiller. So at the USO provided Federer had made the finals by taking one of those MPs, he would have lost 3 sets to Nadals' 1 set lost before the finals. Perhaps Legendkiller can entertain us with his recent analysis of that fact and how that then makes the USO Federer's to take using the same pseudo intelligence and logic used for the FO

So did you see the match?

Federer had match points in the 3rd set.

So had he taken them he would've made the final with a loss of one set.

So did we enjoy this education?

Yah of course he did. Now i realised i'm wasting my time on someone certainly lacking on knowledge on this subject. Perhaps you need Laverfan to laugh with you to make you feel better?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well i can only await another amusing response from Legendkiller. So at the USO provided Federer had made the finals by taking one of those MPs, he would have lost 3 sets to Nadals' 1 set lost before the finals. Perhaps Legendkiller can entertain us with his recent analysis of that fact and how that then makes the USO Federer's to take using the same pseudo intelligence and logic used for the FO

So did you see the match?

Federer had match points in the 3rd set.

So had he taken them he would've made the final with a loss of one set.

So did we enjoy this education?

Yah of course he did. Now i realised i'm wasting my time on someone certainly lacking on knowledge on this subject. Perhaps you need Laverfan to laugh with you to make you feel better?

So again I provide the facts and you dodge them.

Glad there isn't more Analysts out there like you.

Lack of knowledge and know how.

So Legendkiller, please amuse us more on how Federer could possibly have had match points in the 3rd set or perhaps 4th set should i be kind enough to assume the former was a typing error when he won 3 games in the 3rd set and 2 games in the 4th set. Really this is funny

not too sure exactly what we're disagreeing on LK

"Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO."

I agree with this totally, but we've seen this before, and Roger losing to Rafa, hence why I'd have made Rafa favourite even if he wasn't playing the better tennis (hence why I also made him favourite for FO). Whether it's a mental problem as you suggest, or just the match-up, Federer usually loses to Nadal at slams (in fact he's never beaten him anywhere except Wimbledon).

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yah of course he did. Now i realised i'm wasting my time on someone certainly lacking on knowledge on this subject. Perhaps you need Laverfan to laugh with you to make you feel better?

Did you watch the Isner-Nadal or Andujar-Nadal match @FO 2011?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:not too sure exactly what we're disagreeing on LK

"Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO."

I agree with this totally, but we've seen this before, and Roger losing to Rafa, hence why I'd have made Rafa favourite even if he wasn't playing the better tennis (hence why I also made him favourite for FO). Whether it's a mental problem as you suggest, or just the match-up, Federer usually loses to Nadal at slams (in fact he's never beaten him anywhere except Wimbledon).

That was the whole point I was making.

When I say it was there for the taking he had an opporunity and didn't take them. Not saying that if he faced Nadal he would win. It was stating he played some great tennis and came up short in the big matches.

Given how well he was playing he just didn't take the chances. A Federer of years ago would've been a tad more clinical.

Looking at the FO final when he won the 3rd. He rolled over in the 4th and Nadal ran out winning when not playing at his best.

At the USO I would pay to see Federer and Nadal. Not sure however if Roger would suffer mentally given the 2 defeats he has experience in Melbourne.

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yah of course he did. Now i realised i'm wasting my time on someone certainly lacking on knowledge on this subject. Perhaps you need Laverfan to laugh with you to make you feel better?

Did you watch the Isner-Nadal or Andujar-Nadal match @FO 2011?

No. Perhaps you can educate me on them and how that made the FO 2011 Federer's for the taking. Really, do they pick these mods for their tennis knowledge or for their ability to use google. I'm not impressed Mr Founder

Simple_Analyst wrote:No. Perhaps you can educate me on them and how that made the FO 2011 Federer's for the taking.

Then you should watch them first.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Really, do they pick these mods for their tennis knowledge or for their ability to use google. I'm not impressed Mr Founder

At least they pick moderators, unlike posters.

legendkillar wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:not too sure exactly what we're disagreeing on LK

"Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO."

I agree with this totally, but we've seen this before, and Roger losing to Rafa, hence why I'd have made Rafa favourite even if he wasn't playing the better tennis (hence why I also made him favourite for FO). Whether it's a mental problem as you suggest, or just the match-up, Federer usually loses to Nadal at slams (in fact he's never beaten him anywhere except Wimbledon).

That was the whole point I was making.

When I say it was there for the taking he had an opporunity and didn't take them. Not saying that if he faced Nadal he would win. It was stating he played some great tennis and came up short in the big matches.

Given how well he was playing he just didn't take the chances. A Federer of years ago would've been a tad more clinical.

Looking at the FO final when he won the 3rd. He rolled over in the 4th and Nadal ran out winning when not playing at his best.

At the USO I would pay to see Federer and Nadal. Not sure however if Roger would suffer mentally given the 2 defeats he has experience in Melbourne.

Oh the amusement. So Legendkiller you still haven't told us how Federer could possibly have had Match Points in the 3rd set of the USO in a set he lost 6-3


Ah i see you now trying to make sense of a lost logic. I thought you confidently quoted stats. Did you realise that wasn't going to help?

Infact at the FO, he had no hope once Nadal made that finals. There was not even any guarantee he would have won the match had he won the 1st set. He still needed to win 2 more sets, something he never did against Nadal in 4 previous FO meetings.

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:No. Perhaps you can educate me on them and how that made the FO 2011 Federer's for the taking.

Then you should watch them first.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Really, do they pick these mods for their tennis knowledge or for their ability to use google. I'm not impressed Mr Founder

At least they pick moderators, unlike posters.

I should watch them and then see why the FO was there for Federer's taking?

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think FO 2011 and USO 2011 were there for the taking. However, I do think at Wimbledon Tsonga deserves credit for how he transfered the form of Queens where the courts were ultra quick to the slow pace of Wimbledon. I think Federer was outperformed there from a typical grass court peformance by where Tsonga actually shrunk the court and really limited Federer's options and played a very solid net game.

I do agree that how fit Djokovic and Nadal keep themselves will be integral to what Roger can win.

Really? Tell us how there were there for the taking.

Indeed.

Are you telling me that Nadal played the better tennis leading up to the FO final? Because that would be wishful and rather bias thinking.

Again Federer was playing the better tennis in New York and mentally capitulated against Djokovic. A far more concentrated Federer would've seen that match out.

So in your infinite wisdom do disclose where Nadal played better than Federer over a period of time in 2011?

Maybe you have given a reason right there as to why Federer should consider retirement - if he plays the better tennis and still loses to Nadal and Djokovic (and others - maybe Murray this year) that doesn't leave many options open to him. Of course he could try to outlast Nadal and Djokovic - maybe they will suffer a career threatening injury or at least an injury that puts them out of a slam or two. Alternatively, if Tenez has been correct all along, maybe a bag full of syringes will be found in someones luggage at the Olympics.

Last years slam performances seem to indicate that Federer has a 50-50 or 35-65 chance of beating Djokovic but a 20-80 chance of beating Nadal (all approximations).

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:not too sure exactly what we're disagreeing on LK

"Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO."

I agree with this totally, but we've seen this before, and Roger losing to Rafa, hence why I'd have made Rafa favourite even if he wasn't playing the better tennis (hence why I also made him favourite for FO). Whether it's a mental problem as you suggest, or just the match-up, Federer usually loses to Nadal at slams (in fact he's never beaten him anywhere except Wimbledon).

That was the whole point I was making.

When I say it was there for the taking he had an opporunity and didn't take them. Not saying that if he faced Nadal he would win. It was stating he played some great tennis and came up short in the big matches.

Given how well he was playing he just didn't take the chances. A Federer of years ago would've been a tad more clinical.

Looking at the FO final when he won the 3rd. He rolled over in the 4th and Nadal ran out winning when not playing at his best.

At the USO I would pay to see Federer and Nadal. Not sure however if Roger would suffer mentally given the 2 defeats he has experience in Melbourne.

Oh the amusement. So Legendkiller you still haven't told us how Federer could possibly have had Match Points in the 3rd set of the USO in a set he lost 6-3


Ah i see you now trying to make sense of a lost logic. I thought you confidently quoted stats. Did you realise that wasn't going to help?

Infact at the FO, he had no hope once Nadal made that finals. There was not even any guarantee he would have won the match had he won the 1st set. He still needed to win 2 more sets, something he never did against Nadal in 4 previous FO meetings.

So you think despite the optimism of Nadal's first round struggle that not just Federer, but the rest of the field would've at least felt encouraged by his first 5 setter? That is a massive deal. Contrast Murray and Nadal at MC when Murray going into the match at RG against Nadal there was large optimism that Andy could've given more in that match.

In regards to the USO, I misquoted the wrong year!

I think you mis-interpret 'opportunity' to 'outcome' which largely are 2 different things.

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think FO 2011 and USO 2011 were there for the taking. However, I do think at Wimbledon Tsonga deserves credit for how he transfered the form of Queens where the courts were ultra quick to the slow pace of Wimbledon. I think Federer was outperformed there from a typical grass court peformance by where Tsonga actually shrunk the court and really limited Federer's options and played a very solid net game.

I do agree that how fit Djokovic and Nadal keep themselves will be integral to what Roger can win.

Really? Tell us how there were there for the taking.

Indeed.

Are you telling me that Nadal played the better tennis leading up to the FO final? Because that would be wishful and rather bias thinking.

Again Federer was playing the better tennis in New York and mentally capitulated against Djokovic. A far more concentrated Federer would've seen that match out.

So in your infinite wisdom do disclose where Nadal played better than Federer over a period of time in 2011?

Maybe you have given a reason right there as to why Federer should consider retirement - if he plays the better tennis and still loses to Nadal and Djokovic (and others - maybe Murray this year) that doesn't leave many options open to him. Of course he could try to outlast Nadal and Djokovic - maybe they will suffer a career threatening injury or at least an injury that puts them out of a slam or two. Alternatively, if Tenez has been correct all along, maybe a bag full of syringes will be found in someones luggage at the Olympics.

Last years slam performances seem to indicate that Federer has a 50-50 or 35-65 chance of beating Djokovic but a 20-80 chance of beating Nadal (all approximations).

They say that Slams are all about 'peaking' it could be a case that Federer is peaking too soon at Slams. Or just the rest of the field have caught up?

I think retirement is something of serious consideration.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:not too sure exactly what we're disagreeing on LK

"Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO."

I agree with this totally, but we've seen this before, and Roger losing to Rafa, hence why I'd have made Rafa favourite even if he wasn't playing the better tennis (hence why I also made him favourite for FO). Whether it's a mental problem as you suggest, or just the match-up, Federer usually loses to Nadal at slams (in fact he's never beaten him anywhere except Wimbledon).

That was the whole point I was making.

When I say it was there for the taking he had an opporunity and didn't take them. Not saying that if he faced Nadal he would win. It was stating he played some great tennis and came up short in the big matches.

Given how well he was playing he just didn't take the chances. A Federer of years ago would've been a tad more clinical.

Looking at the FO final when he won the 3rd. He rolled over in the 4th and Nadal ran out winning when not playing at his best.

At the USO I would pay to see Federer and Nadal. Not sure however if Roger would suffer mentally given the 2 defeats he has experience in Melbourne.

Oh the amusement. So Legendkiller you still haven't told us how Federer could possibly have had Match Points in the 3rd set of the USO in a set he lost 6-3


Ah i see you now trying to make sense of a lost logic. I thought you confidently quoted stats. Did you realise that wasn't going to help?

Infact at the FO, he had no hope once Nadal made that finals. There was not even any guarantee he would have won the match had he won the 1st set. He still needed to win 2 more sets, something he never did against Nadal in 4 previous FO meetings.

So you think despite the optimism of Nadal's first round struggle that not just Federer, but the rest of the field would've at least felt encouraged by his first 5 setter? That is a massive deal. Contrast Murray and Nadal at MC when Murray going into the match at RG against Nadal there was large optimism that Andy could've given more in that match.

In regards to the USO, I misquoted the wrong year!

I think you mis-interpret 'opportunity' to 'outcome' which largely are 2 different things.

You misquoted the wrong year? Really? So Federer now apparently had MPs in the 3rd set of USO 2010? And you actually added to it?

So this then means the FO was there for the taking for the rest of the field?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:not too sure exactly what we're disagreeing on LK

"Federer was playing the much better tennis leading into the final against Nadal at the FO and even at the USO."

I agree with this totally, but we've seen this before, and Roger losing to Rafa, hence why I'd have made Rafa favourite even if he wasn't playing the better tennis (hence why I also made him favourite for FO). Whether it's a mental problem as you suggest, or just the match-up, Federer usually loses to Nadal at slams (in fact he's never beaten him anywhere except Wimbledon).

That was the whole point I was making.

When I say it was there for the taking he had an opporunity and didn't take them. Not saying that if he faced Nadal he would win. It was stating he played some great tennis and came up short in the big matches.

Given how well he was playing he just didn't take the chances. A Federer of years ago would've been a tad more clinical.

Looking at the FO final when he won the 3rd. He rolled over in the 4th and Nadal ran out winning when not playing at his best.

At the USO I would pay to see Federer and Nadal. Not sure however if Roger would suffer mentally given the 2 defeats he has experience in Melbourne.

Oh the amusement. So Legendkiller you still haven't told us how Federer could possibly have had Match Points in the 3rd set of the USO in a set he lost 6-3


Ah i see you now trying to make sense of a lost logic. I thought you confidently quoted stats. Did you realise that wasn't going to help?

Infact at the FO, he had no hope once Nadal made that finals. There was not even any guarantee he would have won the match had he won the 1st set. He still needed to win 2 more sets, something he never did against Nadal in 4 previous FO meetings.

So you think despite the optimism of Nadal's first round struggle that not just Federer, but the rest of the field would've at least felt encouraged by his first 5 setter? That is a massive deal. Contrast Murray and Nadal at MC when Murray going into the match at RG against Nadal there was large optimism that Andy could've given more in that match.

In regards to the USO, I misquoted the wrong year!

I think you mis-interpret 'opportunity' to 'outcome' which largely are 2 different things.

You misquoted the wrong year? Really? So Federer now apparently had MPs in the 3rd set of USO 2010? And you actually added to it?

So this then means the FO was there for the taking for the rest of the field?

Given you didn't see the Andjuar or Isner match, I struggle to see how you think otherwise.

Be a first for someone to dismiss others chances without viewing those matches in particular

Of course i didn't see the Andjuar or Isner match but i did see the USO 2010 and 2011 between match Djokovic and Federer

You see Laverfan has abandoned you here. Even google cannot help her this time. She rather not join you on the mockery list here.

It will be interesting to hear the thoughts of Federer on how the modern game is developing. Even Nadal on his aftermatch interview at the AO 2012 final, said that it would be too boring to watch the complete game over again and would just watch the high-lights.

Six hours of tennis is more than three back to back football matches, nearly three back to back marathon races (men), nearly two back to back superbowl matches. Ultimately it is going to be the increasing length of these matches and the difficulty in scheduling them and selling them to a television audience that will eventually cause something to be done. It is not yet there but is heading in that direction.

If Roger loves the game and he always says he has a passion for the sport, enjoys the travel and limelight, well then why stop. Even at 31 he is lightyears ahead of most of the rest of the tour. As long as he plays he will make big endorsement money and appearance fees. I mean so what if he loses so matches to nadal and Djoko. I think if he enjoys it he should stick around. He can still produce heart stopping moments of brilliance. He has earned the right to leave on his own terms. I don't think he will get #17, but so what.

Nore Staat wrote:It will be interesting to hear the thoughts of Federer on how the modern game is developing. Even Nadal on his aftermatch interview at the AO 2012 final, said that it would be too boring to watch the complete game over again and would just watch the high-lights.

Six hours of tennis is more than three back to back football matches, nearly three back to back marathon races (men), nearly two back to back superbowl matches. Ultimately it is going to be the increasing length of these matches and the difficulty in scheduling them and selling them to a television audience that will eventually cause something to be done. It is not yet there but is heading in that direction.

And what exactly do you know about American football? Another tennis fan who thinks just because the Superbowl was played last night, he can bring it up. Do you know how long the actually play time takes?

I wish people left Federer alone. The guy loves tennis. I'm sure if left alone he's got at least another 2-3 years of top 4 presence.

I don't want him to retire until he's properly done.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course i didn't see the Andjuar or Isner match but i did see the USO 2010 and 2011 between match Djokovic and Federer

You see Laverfan has abandoned you here. Even google cannot help her this time. She rather not join you on the mockery list here.

I think I would rather mock you for being able to judge a tournament without seeing it

There maybe hope you yet son.

At the Australian Open seven rounds of tennis took Djokovic 20 hours and 51 minutes and Nadal 22 hours and 26 minutes.

Simple_Analyst wrote: And what exactly do you know about American football? Another tennis fan who thinks just because the Superbowl was played last night, he can bring it up. Do you know how long the actually play time takes?

You can be obtuse at times.

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course i didn't see the Andjuar or Isner match but i did see the USO 2010 and 2011 between match Djokovic and Federer

You see Laverfan has abandoned you here. Even google cannot help her this time. She rather not join you on the mockery list here.

I think I would rather mock you for being able to judge a tournament without seeing it

There maybe hope you yet son.

It's more amusing mocking you for watching a tournament and still judging it with a complete lack of logic and ignorance of facts.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course i didn't see the Andjuar or Isner match but i did see the USO 2010 and 2011 between match Djokovic and Federer

You see Laverfan has abandoned you here. Even google cannot help her this time. She rather not join you on the mockery list here.

I think I would rather mock you for being able to judge a tournament without seeing it

There maybe hope you yet son.

It's more amusing mocking you for watching a tournament and still judging it with a complete lack of logic and ignorance of facts.

So are you going to delight us with the in and outs of American Football??

I can't wait for this.

Well i can educate you on any sport you desire to be educated on. Nore Staats will of course refrain from mentioning Superbowl on here in the future. Perhaps LK, you can see my brief analysis handed to the Superbowl thread here last night https://www.606v2.com/t23248-the-official-606v2-superbowl-thread.

I don't post in the American football section because i find them more intelligent than the tennis fans here so less fun. They are not as amusing as the comedy that is Federer fans here as well. For example, i'm not going to find anything as funny as LK suggesting that Federer had match points in a set he lost 3-6

Do english people actually like American football? I love it especially college football since i went to college and have a lot of drunken fond memories of big rivalry matches. But do the brits get or like the NFL on average?