The most awesome Federer tribute video

First topic message reminder :

Check this out homies.

This is an awesome tribute video to The Mighty Fed.

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvPs9EveFbc&feature=g-vrec&context=G2cd8b0aRVAAAAAAAADg



emancipator

lydian wrote:lol NITB...yes we could do with Duggie's Poetry Corner at times on here to give abit of levity.

PS. I wouldnt say Tenez runs the show on here...he may like to think he does of course!

It wasn't Duggie who did Poetry Corner, it was me

Roger Federer is, to coin a description of the famous golfer Harry Vardon, "the Stylist". He is the epitome of aesthetic brilliance. He is the embodiment of a tennis coaching manual.

There is really no shot that he can't hit or style that he can't play. He proved that he can play serve-volley tennis (did that against Sampras 11 years ago), and he in his younger days, his return game was excellent.

I hope that the King has a worthy successor when he finally decides to bow out.

Stop it all of you! You are making me want to cry... No one is going to retire anytime soon. They are all too busy trying to win Indian Wells. Well all those that are not already focussing on Miami...

HE - your last line maybe needed the caveat "no offence intended"
Perfectly legitimate comment in as much it's better to focus on the future than dwell on the past, but might just be taken the wrong way ......

He's better than sex.

Duggie was apain, only interested in charming the women. Not surprised LF fell under his charm!

He would support both Federer ad Nadal cause it would give him twice as much chance to score! He had the support of all the Rafalitas.

Hope he is doing well though as I know his health was fragile and whatever arguments we had, I sincerely hope he is ok.

Tenez!

I just found the comment, here it is:

Posted by DJB 03/10/2012 at 06:35 AM
@noleisthebest

I can' believe you are trying to claim that Djoko doesn't take too much time like Nadal. I thought even your rose tinted glasses could have seen past that one.

Djokovic takes too much time against everyone, not just Nadal. Have a look at his match aganst Fed in the AO last year. Even Fed said to him that he was bouncing the ball for far too long. In fact Djoko's could be said to be worse because he intentionally keeps his opponent waiting longer on big points. Next you'll be telling us Fed only ever loses to Nadal because Fed has fitness problems, sigh.


Also why are you posting links to a dead forum like 606v2? That forum died out last year after W when it became the fourm to hate Nadal, and its never managed to come back since. What would duggietoo think of a forum where Tenez is voted the most thought provoking poster?

So, who IS this person haunting me on tennis.com, can he/she be brave and step forward?

nitb, stop flattering yourself and indulging in self imposed importance.

Jahu wrote:nitb, stop flattering yourself and indulging in self imposed importance.

I knew it was you...

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez!

I just found the comment, here it is:

Posted by DJB 03/10/2012 at 06:35 AM
@noleisthebest

I can' believe you are trying to claim that Djoko doesn't take too much time like Nadal. I thought even your rose tinted glasses could have seen past that one.

Djokovic takes too much time against everyone, not just Nadal. Have a look at his match aganst Fed in the AO last year. Even Fed said to him that he was bouncing the ball for far too long. In fact Djoko's could be said to be worse because he intentionally keeps his opponent waiting longer on big points. Next you'll be telling us Fed only ever loses to Nadal because Fed has fitness problems, sigh.


Also why are you posting links to a dead forum like 606v2? That forum died out last year after W when it became the fourm to hate Nadal, and its never managed to come back since. What would duggietoo think of a forum where Tenez is voted the most thought provoking poster?

You think it's him? Surely not. Duggie was posting at MTL...if he were still posting he'd still be there.

lydian wrote:Pete was always a very very private guy, didnt say much, and wasnt bothered about saying much. He played for his own ambition. Towards the end of his career he wasnt enjoying his tennis that much but was driven on by that last 1 great win because he believed he still had it in him. Clearly Roger feels (and shows) this ability to still win big too, and this will drive him on similarly.

The question for any big player is just when do they call time and how? If Roger goes through this year slamless then I think its pretty much over slam-wise, just cant see him doing it in 2013 and beyond unless luck really falls his way.
As he hasnt had the dips that Sampras had, the question is will Roger start to fade away or slip abruptly? I think because his game is so finely tuned that the decline when it comes could be quite quick, and we wont see him clinging around for a long time...either way I just dont see him playing on beyond end of 2013 come what may. Maybe WTF 2013 could be the sign off...and he always has a good chance of doing well there given its indoors, plus it would give people a good chance to say goodbye as it could be known some time in advance late season that WTF was going to be the end of his career.

I disagree,
Roger has never relied much on his athletic ability,the foundation of his game is grounded in his sound technique and shot making ability
His improvement throughout his career has always been more technical and skill,rather then running faster,jumping higher or enduring longer
This is why his decline has been so steady,he may be a step slower but is still able to produce his best tennis on any given day and at his age is still arguably the most consistent player in the draw
There are some things in life that time finds harder to catch up with and Rogers shot making ability will definitely not desert him as quickly as someones speed can
Even the courts being slowed down seems to have little effect on him,when thats definitely something thats going to burn the athletes out in the exact way you're describing and most likely a lot sooner then expected

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez!

I just found the comment, here it is:

Posted by DJB 03/10/2012 at 06:35 AM
@noleisthebest

I can' believe you are trying to claim that Djoko doesn't take too much time like Nadal. I thought even your rose tinted glasses could have seen past that one.

Djokovic takes too much time against everyone, not just Nadal. Have a look at his match aganst Fed in the AO last year. Even Fed said to him that he was bouncing the ball for far too long. In fact Djoko's could be said to be worse because he intentionally keeps his opponent waiting longer on big points. Next you'll be telling us Fed only ever loses to Nadal because Fed has fitness problems, sigh.


Also why are you posting links to a dead forum like 606v2? That forum died out last year after W when it became the fourm to hate Nadal, and its never managed to come back since. What would duggietoo think of a forum where Tenez is voted the most thought provoking poster?

You think it's him? Surely not. Duggie was posting at MTL...if he were still posting he'd still be there.

No, Duggie had a lot more class than this "anonymous" individual

noleisthebest wrote:

Jahu wrote:nitb, stop flattering yourself and indulging in self imposed importance.

I knew it was you...

Nope, you know me, my comments are never more than a few letters. I have no ability to writes long stories.

noleisthebest wrote:No, Duggie had a lot more class than this "anonymous" individual

Do you know who could that be?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:No, Duggie had a lot more class than this "anonymous" individual

Do you know who could that be?

definitely someone who visits this forum.

Duggie hasnt been seen on forums for over a year now...
Yes NITB, I remember your liking of poetry, duggie had that like too.

Veejay...I hear you, but something tells me that with Federer "it" will go very quickly. Dont be fooled by his physicality either, the guy works out like a trojan and has done since the early 2000s when he knew he had to. Sure he has great technique, etc....and as they say power is nothing with control...but so in this era control is nothing without power too. He will likely keep alot of power and control for 2-3 years yet...but the mind starts to slip also. I just think given the miles under his belt that he'll find it very hard after mid-2013 to maintain his motivation, desire and physical edge. They're all human at the end of the day, and its very very rare for these tope guys to go beyond around 32 years old....Agassi in that respect was different and had some dips/breaks in his career too, he was more a late blossomer. But who knows...

I have often wondered when he is really going to start slowing down,every time I think he's done ,he proves me wrong.Its definitely hard to imagine where his motivation comes from,especially if he is working much harder to win less but yet he looks hungrier then ever,I guess as long as he has certain goals and loves what he does its enough to motivate him.If he genuinely wants to keep playing till the Rio Olympics I seriously believe he will cause recently he's made it quite clear that he enjoys the challenge of proving his naysayers wrong
He definitely has a lot of milage but theres no sign of that effecting him yet,as he isn't looking or playing like your average 30-31 year old,his results are still incredibly consistent,a little too consistent for me to believe "it" will go very quickly
For that to happen everything will need to crash at the same time

I think his decline will always be slow because at its core his performance comes from a talent that he'll still have at 70. It's players whose game is based on their physical prowess who drop off a cliff.

My God, when Federer goes onto the seniors tour they may as well give him the lot. The man will be playing at 80% of what he is now against guys struggling to be 50% of their old level.

True in principle BB but then Sampras was a huge talent, his game wasnt based on physical prowess but his performance dipped quickly. Partly due to motivation, partly due to his health & injuries. The biggest challenge for Fed will be his motivation...that can affect form greatly, and I wonder where that will come form post OG this year.
Given that he already dominates his similar age peers, the Seniors tour will throw up no surprises. Its not like the rusty old men such as Henman, Sampras, Courier, Goran, etc are going to challenge him!

Sampras says his best tennis he ever played was his last match. And I agree with that. Agassi himself was getting better in 2002.

I am not sure what was going down from Pete when he was 30. His motivation for the smaller tournament certainly but I can;t remember seeing him with slow rflexes or even a step slower. Nothing obvious. One thing for sure is that in 2002 conds were slow in Wimbledon and that certainly affected him like it has affected him all his career at the FO.

McEnroe woudl be a better example of a talented player that suddenly stoped having success.

Fed has better consistency than Pete now at this age so there is no reason to draw complete parallels, the point is that the decline drop is unpredictable and factors such as motivation are not known and can come into play at almost any moment for older players...that point they get to where they just dont want to put in the practice anymore. Seems to hit most around 31-32 at latest, earlier for others,..Agassi was a very definite exception and late bloomer.

For Feds sake I hope he can play on for a good few years...my only opinion, and of course thats all it is, is that I think his motivation is currently being buoyed by the good run at end of 11/start of 12 maybe giving him a sniff of #1 if things keep going his way and Djoko starts slipping, and the Olympics. I think post-OG and if #1 is off the agenda then end of 2012 and 2013 is going to get more difficult to motivate himself...thats the biggest factor for me than a slide of timing or physique. Of course another motivating factor might be the thought of beating Nadal and Djoko in slams (where possible!) to protect his slam count although thats looking safer these days from Nadal and hard to see Djoko doing 3-4 similar seasons from a very physically based game.

Federer has a 35-2 in record since USO, IIRC. I would not doubt his motivation, but familial duties may be another aspect to consider. Schooling for his two daughters is another aspect worth factoring.

Yes his record the past 6-7 months is great, but I think his current high motivation is fuelled by OG and a shot at #1 (given his record has been good as you say...if Nole slips in next few months Federer could get those 1-2 weeks he needs...not very likely for me but you never know). Targets motivate people.
I just think beyond OG and shot at #1 what's his target going to be? More of the same? Anyway...I dont mean to turn this into a massive retirement discussion so apologies to the OP...hopefully Fed will keep showing the world his brand of tennis for some time to come.

The 35-2 is impressive, and, I think, includes that DC oddity (on home soil ) which makes it only ONE defeat on tour over a six month period.

Something's gonna give soon - and most likely here in California........

lydian : true, Federer's consistency is better than Pete's at same age - far better in fact. Some win/loss stats to compare on like-for-like age basis :

Pete 2002 : 27-17 2001 : 35-16 2000 : 42-13

Fed 2012*: 18-2 2011 : 64-12 2010 : 65-13

*ytd

I've never understood Pete's reported comments about playing his best tennis at the end of his career. I know he did say this (or at least something close) because someone once posted a link with source ; and yet the evidence just doesn't tally. I haven't listed Pete's W/L ratios for his prime, suffice to say they are way better than in those late years. Maybe even Pete himself was looking back with rose-tinted nostalgia ....?

Whatever..... Pete remains a legend with a totally secure place in the game.

Feds recent record is buoyed by indoors and speedier courts; sadly that has ended now with the ridiculously slow Indian wells sandpit, where players can bust their guts hitting hard and still get no reward. Ah well.......

Laverfan mentioned the girls schooling; this is, in my opinion, the biggest reason he may stop. The guy is ridiculously well balanced, and wouldn't want the girls messed about, nor for him to be an absentee father.

Anyway, let us return to the shameless Fed-worshipping, I was rather enjoying some of it

Okay bb, here goes, specially for you.....

Maybe you've already seen this, but for anyone who hasn't it's WELL worth four minutes of your time.

Although more in tribute to the skills of the artist, rather than he who wields the racket.

Amazing stuff

Enjoy !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akhUEQSE5Uk

Yes lags72, its something tenez and I argued in the past. I know Pete SAID that but I just dont believe him, dont know why he said it. It was obvious he was struggling from one event to the next after his last Wimb win. Even fellow pros like Rusedski saaw it and said he was a yard slower, Kafelnikov said he should retire given the losses were getting just plain embarrassing for someone with that career record...so that flies in the face of what Pete was saying himself. But he always did well at USO, and home turf always made him raise his game plus that surface still hadnt changed radically compared to before, if perhaps a littl slower. He also had the fortune of playing his old nemesis in that US02 final. Anyway...he was very very inconsistent those last 3 seasons (00, 01, 02) and I still maintain his motivation was declining rapidly, he wasnt practicisng the same anymore and he was poorly recovering between events as the anemia conditions effects kicked in more with age. But hey...Pete thinks he played the best tennis of his career in that last match. He clearly forget his performance vs Agassi at Wimb 99 final for a start! I wonder if he just wanted to big up the win and make it seem like he retired at the top of his game rather than limping over the finishing line....who knows but not many people actually believe him who followed his career for sure.

BB...you've never stopped in your 'shameless Fed-worhsipping' including the 'ridiculously well balanced' comment in that post alone, lol

The four-minute painting is incredible. A real artist at work....and the painter!

lags72 wrote:
I've never understood Pete's reported comments about playing his best tennis at the end of his career. I know he did say this (or at least something close) because someone once posted a link with source ; and yet the evidence just doesn't tally. I haven't listed Pete's W/L ratios for his prime, suffice to say they are way better than in those late years. Maybe even Pete himself was looking back with rose-tinted nostalgia ....?

Whatever..... Pete remains a legend with a totally secure place in the game.

That's the mistake many people do. The win/loss ratio is completely irrelevant. It simply overlooks teh most important factor in competitive tennis: the competition.

THat competition is constantly evolving, getting better, more varied and numerous. If you don;t factor in the competition, you can throw your w/l stats out of teh window. We did not have to wait for Fed's decline to see him lose already versus Nadal, to struggle v Nole and Murray.

Same applies to all tennis players and Nole and Murray will go down before they can reach their peak pushed by the new competition. Peak in terms of tournament wins is different than peak tennis (form).

Watch the Nadal fans make a tedious attempt to better the video made by Rubin.

The same people who like Nadal, are the same people who like Bieber.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Watch the Nadal fans make a tedious attempt to better the video made by Rubin.

The same people who like Nadal, are the same people who like Bieber.

Ha ha! Real men only like Federer but obviously they wouldn't want to be "facebook friends"...

https://www.606v2.com/t25484-rafa-is-just-too-pretty

sirfredperry wrote:
Hopefully, Fed is aware of the wishes of his legion of fans worldwide that he play on for as long as possible. He seemed knocked out by his reception in Rotterdam. Let's hope he carries on for a good while yet.

Well if he’s not aware of those wishes by now, he never will..
I’ve been to Rotterdam myself and have seen a lot of footage off court during that tournament and it was easy to notice how happy he is with his life and the status he has throughout the world. Seemingly more than during his peak years actually. He always has been aware of his special skills but in recent times he’s showing-off more than ever, like a real crowd pleaser does. In Rotterdam he felt sorry for the crowd who got tickets for the day he had a bye so he suggested to pull off a exhibition of a couple of super tiebreaks against a Dutch player that night. Of course the house was fully packed (10.000 seats).

Back to the clip: it doesn’t contain Dabul’s reaction after that tweener, that’s a serious flaw!

gallery play : but I assume you yourself have seen his reaction in another clip ....?

It's a look that combines disbelief / bemusement / admiration, all rolled into one

lags72 wrote:gallery play : but I assume you yourself have seen his reaction in another clip ....?

It's a look that combines disbelief / bemusement / admiration, all rolled into one

sure i've seen that reaction lags, that's why i was reffering to it. His face te lls it all, all what we are trying to say on this thread

Tenez - I've read your 3.05pm post twice, but have little idea as to what you're trying to say or what 'mistake' it is that I have supposedly made. You've quoted my own post and yet your follow-up comments seem to bear no relation to it. Looks like you've moved to a different topic perhaps.

The records show that of Pete's many losses in his last two years on tour (aged 30/31), no less than fourteen of them came at the hands of players ranked outside the Top 50 (and a couple even below 100). These players were not - with perhaps one exception - some bright new rising stars representing stronger competition, but mostly the sort of journeymen who would not have troubled him in his pomp - or certainly not with such frequency. In simple terms, this is clear evidence of a fairly rapid decline, although nothing of course can detract from his final (literally final!) performance at USO 2002. If you don't believe those many sorry losses were indicative of a great legend in decline, then we're obviously on a totally different wavelength.

At the same age, Federer is also in decline if measured against his previous stratospheric Slam-winning level, but shows no signs - yet - of losing to such lowly opposition (Belluci tonight perhaps ....?? ). I haven't bothered to check, but I honestly can't remember the last time he lost even the odd match to a non top 50 guy , let alone 14 matches within a period of just two years, as did Pete. Personally I wouldn't want to witness it happening with similar regularity, and I'm reasonably certain, and hopeful, that Federer himself - much as he truly loves being on court - wouldn't want to stick around if such a pattern began.

Pete may have cared less about the smaller tournaments and losses towards teh end of his career, but already in his hey days he had a bigger loss ratio than Federer anyway and losing to lower ranked players also.

Besides his W/L ratios going down, can you actually pin-point a slower footwork or reflexes from Pete? a worse serving action, slower speed? I very much doubt you and I could see any difference with teh naked eye or even measure it proper tools. So I can only assume you base your assumptions on that W/L ratio only but that, as explained, is completely irrelevant in tennis. It's like saying Borg was at his peak before McEnroe came in to challenge him.

Pete had the most prolific time between 94/97 but if you look at his slam wins then he had really tough matches (4 and 5 setters) versus not so great players either. 3 or 4 years later with the competition getting tougher and those losses would be more frequent. This is what Pete himself says. The opposition was getting better. It may have been harder to make a name for yourself then, but that doesn't mean players weren't simply playing better. I am sure Pete knows what he is talking about. Many players have said they play their best at 29/30 even 31. We can even see Nalbandian playing pretty well again. If he was declining with the opposition getting better he woudl be ranked lower than 100.

An athlete is at his peak between 28 to 31. Tennis players have their most prolific years between 25 to 27 essentially because competition and technology shorten their career faster.

Agassi in 2002 was playing very well and really thought he would beat Pete. But guess what Pete played amazing that day. Beating a better Agassi than he ever played and still beat him as convincingly as ever.

Fans don;t want their champions to be beaten by a better opposition, they have to have excuses, hence the old age, declining excuse. Fed and Pete fans alike. Even last year we coudl hear the Nadal fans saying than Nadal was not at his peak, completely omitting that one player had simply become better, more efficient...despite Nadal playing better in 2011 than 2010. Djoko will meet a better opposition soon and he might not be as successful when he will play his best tennis.

That's all I was saying.

lags72 wrote:Tenez - I've read your 3.05pm post twice, but have little idea as to what you're trying to say or what 'mistake' it is that I have supposedly made. You've quoted my own post and yet your follow-up comments seem to bear no relation to it. Looks like you've moved to a different topic perhaps.

The records show that of Pete's many losses in his last two years on tour (aged 30/31), no less than fourteen of them came at the hands of players ranked outside the Top 50 (and a couple even below 100). These players were not - with perhaps one exception - some bright new rising stars representing stronger competition, but mostly the sort of journeymen who would not have troubled him in his pomp - or certainly not with such frequency. In simple terms, this is clear evidence of a fairly rapid decline, although nothing of course can detract from his final (literally final!) performance at USO 2002. If you don't believe those many sorry losses were indicative of a great legend in decline, then we're obviously on a totally different wavelength.

At the same age, Federer is also in decline if measured against his previous stratospheric Slam-winning level, but shows no signs - yet - of losing to such lowly opposition (Belluci tonight perhaps ....?? ). I haven't bothered to check, but I honestly can't remember the last time he lost even the odd match to a non top 50 guy , let alone 14 matches within a period of just two years, as did Pete. Personally I wouldn't want to witness it happening with similar regularity, and I'm reasonably certain, and hopeful, that Federer himself - much as he truly loves being on court - wouldn't want to stick around if such a pattern began.

2000 does not look too bad...

Sampras - 2000 Lost matches (14)

RR Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 6 L 5-7, 0-6
S Gustavo Kuerten (BRA) 2 L 7-6(5), 3-6, 4-6
F Marat Safin (RUS) 7 L 4-6, 3-6, 3-6
R16 Tim Henman (GBR) 16 L 3-6, 4-6
Q Marat Safin (RUS) 9 L 4-6, 6-3, 6-7(10)
F Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 11 L 4-6, 4-6
R128 Mark Philippoussis (AUS) 25 L 6-4, 5-7, 6-7(4), 6-4, 6-8
RR Dominik Hrbaty (SVK) 14 L 6-0, 4-6, 4-6
RR Tommy Haas (GER) 20 L 5-7, 2-6
R32 Arnaud Di Pasquale (FRA) 54 L 4-6, 4-6 (Bronze medallist at Sydney OG beating Federer)
RR Jiri Novak (CZE) 39 L 6-7(1), 3-6, 2-6
Q Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 10 L 3-6, 6-3, 3-6
R16 Alex Corretja (ESP) 32 L W/O
S Andre Agassi (USA) 1 L 4-6, 6-3, 7-6(0), 6-7(5), 1-6



Sampras 2001 - Lost Matches (16 - highlighted ones may look relatively bad).

Q Max Mirnyi (BLR) 53 L 4-6, 2-6
F Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 4 L 6-7(4), 1-6, 1-6
F Tommy Haas (GER) 16 L 3-6, 6-3, 2-6
R32 Alberto Martin (ESP) 38 L 4-6, 4-6
F Andre Agassi (USA) 3 L 4-6, 2-6
R16 Roger Federer (SUI) 15 L 6-7(7), 7-5, 4-6, 7-6(2), 5-7
S Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 6 L 6-3, 3-6, 2-6
R64 Galo Blanco (ESP) 76 L 6-7(4), 3-6, 2-6 (Raonic's current coach)
RR Marat Safin (RUS) 2 L 6-7(0), 5-7
R64 Alex Calatrava (ESP) 50 L 7-6(3), 3-6, 4-6
R64 Harel Levy (ISR) 54 L 5-7, 6-2, 4-6
R32 Andy Roddick (USA) 119 L 6-7(2), 3-6 (Notice Roddick's rank - 119)
F Andre Agassi (USA) 4 L 6-7(5), 5-7, 1-6
R32 Andrew Ilie (AUS) 43 L 6-3, 6-7(2), 4-6
R32 Chris Woodruff (USA) 96 L 6-7(4), 2-6
R16 Todd Martin (USA) 54 L 7-6(2), 3-6, 4-6, 4-6 (Notice Todd Martin's rank)

laverfan - agreed, 2000 was pretty respectable

The pattern of decline you've highlighted in 2001 continued into 2002, becoming even more marked as regards the lowly rankings of his conquerors. Until it all suddenly, and unexpectedly, came good at the USO in the clash of the pensioners !

lydian wrote:Duggie hasnt been seen on forums for over a year now...
Yes NITB, I remember your liking of poetry, duggie had that like too.

Veejay...I hear you, but something tells me that with Federer "it" will go very quickly. Dont be fooled by his physicality either, the guy works out like a trojan and has done since the early 2000s when he knew he had to. Sure he has great technique, etc....and as they say power is nothing with control...but so in this era control is nothing without power too. He will likely keep alot of power and control for 2-3 years yet...but the mind starts to slip also. I just think given the miles under his belt that he'll find it very hard after mid-2013 to maintain his motivation, desire and physical edge. They're all human at the end of the day, and its very very rare for these tope guys to go beyond around 32 years old....Agassi in that respect was different and had some dips/breaks in his career too, he was more a late blossomer. But who knows...

I have often wondered when he is really going to start slowing down,every time I think he's done ,he proves me wrong.Its definitely hard to imagine where his motivation comes from,especially if he is working much harder to win less but yet he looks hungrier then ever,I guess as long as he has certain goals and loves what he does its enough to motivate him.If he genuinely wants to keep playing till the Rio Olympics I seriously believe he will cause recently he's made it quite clear that he enjoys the challenge of proving his naysayers wrong
He definitely has a lot of milage but theres no sign of that effecting him yet,as he isn't looking or playing like your average 30-31 year old,his results are still incredibly consistent,a little too consistent for me to believe "it" will go very quickly

lags72 wrote:
The pattern of decline you've highlighted in 2001 continued into 2002, becoming even more marked as regards the lowly rankings of his conquerors. Until it all suddenly, and unexpectedly, came good at the USO in the clash of the pensioners !

Very tough loses, indeed.

Sampras 2002 - 17 loses (14 years on tour - very good career).

R32 Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 85 L 3-6, 7-6(7), 4-6
R32 Wayne Arthurs (AUS) 70 L 6-4, 3-6, 6-7(4)
R16 Tommy Haas (GER) 3 L 6-7(3), 6-3, 6-7(5)
R64 George Bastl (SUI) 145 L 3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 4-6
R16 Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 66 L 3-6, 4-6
R128 Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) 69 L 6-3, 4-6, 2-6, 6-7(3)
RR Nicolas Escude (FRA) 30 L 6-7(3), 6-2, 6-7(2)
RR Thomas Johansson (SWE) 9 L 2-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(5)
R64 Max Mirnyi (BLR) 39 L 3-6, 4-6
R64 Felix Mantilla (ESP) 45 L 4-6, 7-6(3), 3-6
F Andy Roddick (USA) 13 L 6-7(9), 3-6
RR Alex Corretja (ESP) 18 L 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(4), 5-7, 4-6
R32 Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 62 L 6-7(1), 1-6
S Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 1 L 2-6, 4-6
R16 Wayne Ferreira (RSA) 48 L 5-7, 5-7
R16 Marat Safin (RUS) 11 L 2-6, 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-7(8)
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 57 L 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

difficult to know when he will retire..I don't think unless one is a top class sportsman we can totally understand how their brains operate. What continues to drive Hewitt for example - a former W and US winner and a former No 1 - who cannot hope to get back to his best and is permanently trying to appease his ailing and injured body. He knows his glory days are behind him, but the guy is obviously a born competitor with a warrior heart and a love of the fight.

Fed is very elegant about it, but is a fierce competitor nevertheless and nothing probably can ever replace the thrill of the contest.

laverfan wrote:

lags72 wrote:
The pattern of decline you've highlighted in 2001 continued into 2002, becoming even more marked as regards the lowly rankings of his conquerors. Until it all suddenly, and unexpectedly, came good at the USO in the clash of the pensioners !

Very tough loses, indeed.

Sampras 2002 - 17 loses (14 years on tour - very good career).

R32 Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 85 L 3-6, 7-6(7), 4-6
R32 Wayne Arthurs (AUS) 70 L 6-4, 3-6, 6-7(4)
R16 Tommy Haas (GER) 3 L 6-7(3), 6-3, 6-7(5)
R64 George Bastl (SUI) 145 L 3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 4-6
R16 Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 66 L 3-6, 4-6
R128 Andrea Gaudenzi (ITA) 69 L 6-3, 4-6, 2-6, 6-7(3)
RR Nicolas Escude (FRA) 30 L 6-7(3), 6-2, 6-7(2)
RR Thomas Johansson (SWE) 9 L 2-6, 7-6(3), 6-7(5)
R64 Max Mirnyi (BLR) 39 L 3-6, 4-6
R64 Felix Mantilla (ESP) 45 L 4-6, 7-6(3), 3-6
F Andy Roddick (USA) 13 L 6-7(9), 3-6
RR Alex Corretja (ESP) 18 L 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(4), 5-7, 4-6
R32 Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 62 L 6-7(1), 1-6
S Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 1 L 2-6, 4-6
R16 Wayne Ferreira (RSA) 48 L 5-7, 5-7
R16 Marat Safin (RUS) 11 L 2-6, 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-7(8)
R32 Todd Martin (USA) 57 L 6-3, 3-6, 4-6

Would be good to compare this list with teh loss of 1996 and 97. I know he got tough match then with less impressive names.

time please - I imagine what many elite players must agonise over is the thought of just how comfortably - or not - they will live with their decision throughout their long years of retirement.

Too soon - and you could spend every day missing it all

Too late - and you risk tainting the legacy

Fraught with potential regrets either way !!

From what we hear and read, most seem to get it about right - though not all. And these days the expanding Champions/seniors tour helps those interested in it to wind down more gradually

Borg came to regret going so early, but his ill-fated comeback failed to provide either the stimulus or the 'closure' that he was hoping for. But happily, we mostly remember his halcyon days ........

Tenez wrote:Would be good to compare this list with teh loss of 1996 and 97. I know he got tough match then with less impressive names.

Sampras 1997 loses - 12 (11 - non-top 10 loses highlighted)

RR Magnus Larsson (SWE) 25 L 6-3, 6-7, 1-2 RET
RR Carlos Moya (ESP) 7 L 3-6, 7-6(4), 2-6
R16 Richard Krajicek (NED) 15 L 4-6, 4-6
R16 Petr Korda (CZE) 16 L 7-6(4), 5-7, 6-7(2), 6-3, 6-7(3)
R16 Magnus Larsson (SWE) 37 L 6-7(6), 6-4, 6-7(5)
Q Jonas Bjorkman (SWE) 24 L 6-3, 3-6, 4-6
R32 Magnus Norman (SWE) 65 L 2-6, 4-6, 6-2, 4-6
RR Mark Philippoussis (AUS) 21 L 6-4, 4-6, 1-0 RET
R64 Jim Courier (USA) 24 L 6-7(5), 4-6
R32 Magnus Larsson (SWE) 43 L 6-3, 2-6, 3-6
S Sergi Bruguera (ESP) 35 L 7-5, 6-7(2), 4-6
R32 Bohdan Ulihrach (CZE) 43 L 6-7(5), 5-7


Sampras 1996 loses - 12 (7 non-top 10 loses highlighted, including a W/O)

RR Boris Becker (GER) 6 L 6-7(10), 6-7(4)
R32 Marc Rosset (SUI) 23 L 4-6, 4-6
F Boris Becker (GER) 6 L 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 3-6, 4-6
Q Thomas Enqvist (SWE) 12 L 3-6, 3-6
Q Richard Krajicek (NED) 13 L 5-7, 6-7(3), 4-6
S Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 6-7(4), 0-6, 2-6
RR Bohdan Ulihrach (CZE) 38 L 6-7(5), 6-2, 3-6
RR Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 7 L 3-6, 2-6
S Goran Ivanisevic (CRO) 6 L 6-2, 4-6, 4-6
Q Paul Haarhuis (NED) 68 L 5-7, 7-6(5), 1-6
Q Tim Henman (GBR) 79 L W/O
R32 Mark Philippoussis (AUS) 40 L 4-6, 6-7(9), 6-7(3)

Thanks. Am I wrong to say it proves my point?

Am I right in saying federer had more non top-10 losses in 2010 compared to 2007.
One thing that did change though was the threat of nadal on all surfaces.

Hi lags, One of my friend's relations worked for the management agency that looked after Borg - apparently he had fallen out of love with the tour for at least a year before he retired, the sheer grind and the travelling and the endless hotel rooms but he was literally terrified of not having made enough money or he might have gone even sooner.

Really sad because he had made enough but he ran through it with one venture after another. I don't think he had rediscovered his passion for the game when he game back for a while but he wanted/needed the money.

That's the story she tells anyway!

Ah, the when-to-go question. Never really bought into the oft-quoted theory that you should go out at the top when they're still asking "why" rather than "when".
Always reckoned that if you go out at the top, you might have added to your achievements in the months that followed.
I believe the regret felt about going on too long is probably not as great as the regret that you went too early.
What should be avoided is the 2003 Pete Sampras situation when he hemmed and haahed practically all year, hinting at various comebacks that never happened and then finally announced he was packing it in. Bit of a mess really, although - fortunately for him - people concentrate on his whole career not the kerfuffle at the end.