What Now For Roger?

As I watched countless replays of today's match it does become clear Federer began to slow in that fifth set but I don't put that down to why he lost. Andy Murray could and perhaps should have wrapped this up in four or even three sets (had he been clinical with that overhead at 5-5 in second set tie-breaker). Anyway this article is about Roger Federer.

If fatigue played even a small part in his defeat today then where does that leave him in the future? After all he came into the tournament as fresh as was humanly possible having not played in any warm-up tournaments. His first four matches were done in dusted in straight sets so they were as brief as you can get them. Yes he had to battle past Tsonga in five sets in over three hours however, if fatigue, denied him a shot at beating Murray after such a brief set of matches to the semi then does this mean he has no hope whatsoever for slam wins now? I mean at the French Open he will have lengthy matches on clay as is the norm so he'll have more court time before potentially reaching the semis so theoretically rules him out of challenging for the title. Wimbledon is Roger's domain but again can anyone see him now reaching the semis having lot as little as two sets as was the case in Australia? The same applies to the US Open so where does Roger go from here?

CC, lets be frank he doesn't have it in his legs any more for brutal fights specifically if it comes back to back, I am not debating Fed would have won or Andy only won like that, his tenure is coming to end.

We simply cannot expect a close to 32 yr old to come and win every round and title its simply inhuman expectations.

Should Roger retire? NO, Should Roger continue to play? NO. Coz he enjoys the game, he is loving to compete with younger guns for fun, the day that fun is gone he will retire. In AO we could see how much he still tries to win everything, this guy's passion for the sport is simply unbelievable.

So to answer the question, "What Now for Federer"? nothing outside fun of beating few youngsters here and there, every win in my view will be seen as a bonus, if could beat Murray/Nole any time this year on any tournament it simply a remarkable achivement.

I see what you are saying but do you think that will be enough for Roger Federer? Of course he has an insatiable love of tennis but he also has an insatiable love of winning. I don't think Roger is one for taking defeat after defeat in matches like the one today. Listening to his comments post-match today he still sounds like he feels he has another slam win in him and that is what still drives him on. That is my opinion on it.

I think what happened to Federer today in the fifth was more than anything due to what happened in the fourth. I think fighting back to take the fourth despite Murray playing so well (OK so he played a poor TB but still...) simply took a lot out of him. In that situation you need a nice and easy first service game to give yourself a bit of a breather, but with Murray returning as well as he was that just wasn't going to happen. It's one of the reasons I'm not massively keen on the word "momentum" in tennis: most people would have said Federer went into the fifth with the momentum, but ultimately he'd invested too much energy into fighting back to level the match (not that he had any choice).

Similar thing happened to Murray in the AO last year, fought so hard to take the third and then shipped the fourth 6-1. Or indeed Djokovic in the US Open final, having given an incredible amount to level at 2 sets all.

The other thing of course is that such was the level of aggression displayed by Murray, Federer spent a fair bit of the match defending, which he isn't used to, and would have taken more out of him.

I think it's too early to start writing obituaries, but I do think that outside Wimbledon Federer's going to find beating any of his three main rivals a very difficult task indeed.

CaladonianCraig. Ha ha! I understand your concern. It must be really, really embarrassing for Roger to lose to Murray. But he will survive. Although if he ever loses to Donald Young it will be time to call it a day...

Or Lukas Rosol??

I think he's still driven, he was talking about how he was excited to do further fitness work in the coming weeks to prepare for the remainder of the year, so he clearly still has the fire. I hope that he continues for as long as he still enjoys the game. If fatigue did come into it, then he's still an enormous threat in the Masters series but perhaps not so much at the slams.

Let's not forget that this man lost narrowly in the WTF only two months ago, beating Murray en route, and may well have just had a bad day at the office. I agree that the manner of the defeat is alarming, but for all we know Fed could come back - yet again - and start winning tournaments. I still think that he'd have the edge against Murray on clay, so that's at least one rival that he could potentially reliably best, and I still think that if everything's clicking for him, he can do it.

I just don't want to count him out in terms of beating the other three guys yet. Remember how we all were before the match, when Fed was ripping through Tomic and Raonic like they weren't there? It was called 50-50. Now everyone's writing Federer off because he lost the match in 5? He was fairly comprehensively outplayed, but it's happened to him before, and he's dished it out to others plenty of times.

I'm excited to see what the season ahead brings for him and the others

No! If Federer got beaten by Rosol he would just laugh. Isn't that what Nadal did? Or maybe it was the other way around.

Seriously though you are getting a little carried away. You do realise that Federer has lost matches before?

I think as long as Roger can maintain in the top 4 or 5 he will stick around, and I think you can't read too much into this loss. But Roger's movement is not what it once was that is to be expected. Still Roger isn't losing to nobodies and he isn't losing easy. He losing to the flagship guys of this era and he is still competitive.

Craig, Federer still has it in him to win Slams, but he can't do so in these slow conditions where we have 28 stroke rallies in the first few games. If this had been played in 36 degrees he'd have had a good shot.

At his age he needs some breaks; a decent draw, the right conditions, that sort of thing. The AO hadn't been his thing since 2007, even though he sneaked one out in 2010.

Look, he's a proper veteran now so he can't be expected to be like he was in his prime, but if he gets the breaks he can still take it. He got some help last Wimbledon and took it, despite having to beat both Djokovic and Murray.

Roger loses, and it's disaster. He's past it. His time has come.

Have we heard this before? Yeah, pretty much for the last 3 or 4 years. Every time he has come back. One time he won't come back of course, but I'm not 100% certain this is the time.

After all, he lost in the semis not round 2. He lost to one of the best players in the world in his prime in 5 sets, not to a nobody. It would not surprise me to see Roger in another slam final in 2013. People are always too quick to write him off.

I think Fed can go on for a while still. Obviously, with advancing age the expectations will have to start diminishing, but he may still be capable of one-off wins even at the highest level. Fans and pundits have a tendency to overreact to each result. Surely, there will likely be more and more losses, and fewer and fewer wins, but it does not mean he might not still be able to win big here and there. And as long as he is enjoying himself - which he seeems to be - that is all perfectly fine.

Like I said BogBrush though he had a very good run to the semi here. Tough looking matches on paper (some of them) but dropped just two sets before the semis in pretty short matches bar one with the majority of the matches played in the cool of the night so physically it is not going to get any better for him. Also another coat of invincibility wore off with that defeat against Andy. Next up is the French Open slam-wise and I would put that as the most physically testing of slams to win so on those grounds his chances there has to be slim at best. Thereafter Wimbledon, perhaps his best last chance but by that time he will be another six months older. Do you see where I am coming from? If people feel physically he isn't up to it then in this day and age he hasn't a hope unless stars align miraculously and the main protagonists bomb out before the semis. Now as we know the likes of Djokovic and Murray are super consistent in that area now and Nadal may be back in full flow by then as well to complicate things. I can' t see it happening myself.

Danny I am merely looking at this with my logic glasses on -Federer fans themselves are keen to point to him being past it so as to speak so I feel it does a disservice to the top players of today to think Fed still has another slam win in him in such a physical state. He is either A. Not physically past it and still in condition to win slams or B. Physically shot and destined to never win another slam. Those are the harsh realities as I see them.

I think despite his f bomb last night directed at murray, Roger is still a good guy and good for the game. One thing I don't appreciate is that i feel like there is a bitterness towards the current champions for somehow failing to be Roger or to play like roger or towards the modern game. Maybe that is my perception of events and it is incorrect. Still I hope he plays as long as possible, he bring ratings, plus I love to watch his matches with Djokovic. I mean the man lost in five sets and is about six months removed from a wimbeldon championship. It isn't like Pete who seemed physically shot by his late 20s or mentally tired. I would be surprised if he won another slam, I thought he would get number 17 even when a lot of fed fans were doubting it. But like you craig I don't know if he can get number 18, most likely not. I really view the future and the present as a battle for supremacy between murray and djoko, and if Nadal is healthy Nadal as well. Those are three greats in their own right that entertain millions of fans. You can't replace a federer, but you don't have to. The sport is what is important, not the man.

What about you do you see yourself remaining a fan lets say in a few years when Murray starts to wane as it inevitably happens? I know I do, I like a lot of the young guys eventhough they aren't winning much. JJ is sweet, harrison has some ability, I love berankis anyone who I am taller than who can hit 130 plus mile an hour serve deserves kudos. To me tennis has got it all. Athleticism, technique, strategy, competition, tension, and artistry; it is a disservice to the game to just focus on one man. But hey it is alright if you are just here because you are a federer fan. No shame in that either, everyone has there preferences.

Yes of course I will still watch - I can't see myself getting up at an ungodly hour to follow the Australian Open unless a match really grabs my imagination though. I have watched tennis since the days of Borg and Connors and will continue to do so when Andy hangs up his racquet.

I think Federer will be strong at Wimbledon, it is his playground.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said BogBrush though he had a very good run to the semi here. Tough looking matches on paper (some of them) but dropped just two sets before the semis in pretty short matches bar one with the majority of the matches played in the cool of the night so physically it is not going to get any better for him. Also another coat of invincibility wore off with that defeat against Andy. Next up is the French Open slam-wise and I would put that as the most physically testing of slams to win so on those grounds his chances there has to be slim at best. Thereafter Wimbledon, perhaps his best last chance but by that time he will be another six months older. Do you see where I am coming from? If people feel physically he isn't up to it then in this day and age he hasn't a hope unless stars align miraculously and the main protagonists bomb out before the semis. Now as we know the likes of Djokovic and Murray are super consistent in that area now and Nadal may be back in full flow by then as well to complicate things. I can' t see it happening myself.

Danny I am merely looking at this with my logic glasses on -Federer fans themselves are keen to point to him being past it so as to speak so I feel it does a disservice to the top players of today to think Fed still has another slam win in him in such a physical state. He is either A. Not physically past it and still in condition to win slams or B. Physically shot and destined to never win another slam. Those are the harsh realities as I see them.

I think much of this change happened yesterday only in your head; I've been telling you for a long time that he's slower and less able than he was but you kept denying it. Where you're "coming from" is where I've been pointing you to.

The bit you do not like to face is that he can be past his best and still able to produce enough to win a Slam, as he did last Wimbledon. It's not doing anyone else a disservice, it's just that he's the best player there's been and given the right conditions, especially a pacy court, a Slam win isn't beyond him.

Yes BogBrush he did it last Wimbledon but look at the matches closely. Yesterday's match followed Wimbledon last year almost identically for the first two sets. The difference being in the third set. Andy has a new mentality - a winning mentality that came about from that Olympic win. Last Wimbledon he allowed himself to mentally crumble amidst Federer's pressure but yesterday that didn't happen. Read the Federer comments afterwards and I get the impression that Fed was banking on the mental collapse but it didn't come. Point being that Murray is now a far different mental creature now than last Wimbledon and I am sure even you can see that.

That is tennis for you and as fans of each other we could bandy thoughts and theories around until next Wimbledon. Federer held big sway in previous Murray meetings because he was physically stronger and Murray was nowhere as he was mentally weaker. I think that is a very fair assessment.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said BogBrush though he had a very good run to the semi here. Tough looking matches on paper (some of them) but dropped just two sets before the semis in pretty short matches bar one with the majority of the matches played in the cool of the night so physically it is not going to get any better for him. Also another coat of invincibility wore off with that defeat against Andy. Next up is the French Open slam-wise and I would put that as the most physically testing of slams to win so on those grounds his chances there has to be slim at best. Thereafter Wimbledon, perhaps his best last chance but by that time he will be another six months older. Do you see where I am coming from? If people feel physically he isn't up to it then in this day and age he hasn't a hope unless stars align miraculously and the main protagonists bomb out before the semis. Now as we know the likes of Djokovic and Murray are super consistent in that area now and Nadal may be back in full flow by then as well to complicate things. I can' t see it happening myself.

Danny I am merely looking at this with my logic glasses on -Federer fans themselves are keen to point to him being past it so as to speak so I feel it does a disservice to the top players of today to think Fed still has another slam win in him in such a physical state. He is either A. Not physically past it and still in condition to win slams or B. Physically shot and destined to never win another slam. Those are the harsh realities as I see them.

I think much of this change happened yesterday only in your head; I've been telling you for a long time that he's slower and less able than he was but you kept denying it. Where you're "coming from" is where I've been pointing you to.

Yes but read my post. I am saying in other words that if Fed fans such as yourself wish to portray him as physically past it then I can't believe they still feel he has a slam win in him. That is what I am getting at here. The match yesterday so Federer looking tired well into the fourth hour of the match. Around the three hour mark he had physically the strength to storm through a tie-break. My point is why didn't Federer have the job done in three sets where physicality would never have been an issue? Sheer bloody-mindedness kept Roger afloat in that match so I am curious as to why stats etc say he was beaten in nearly every area even if you take out the stats when the physicality took over in set five. After all if he has another slam in him surely he shouldn't be getting beaten by Andy Murray - the man he has owned for so long in slams. Something has changed in their encounters and I don't just mean Fed's physical state.

Here is Roger post-match saying what I am alighting to:-

“I think overall he probably created more chances than I did. I had difficulties … getting into his service games time and time again (un)like I usually do against him,” Federer reflected.

“It's normal that with time and with age you learn, you become more experienced, become physically better … obviously with (Murray’s) win I think at the Olympics and the US Open, maybe there's just a little bit more belief or he's a bit more calm overall.

“It seems like he has more peace when he plays out there, and in the process he has better results, I guess.”

Oh Craig, read socal's article about small steps. Physical decline isn't just about getting tired quicker, the guy doesn't play his tennis the same way he used to - at all.

That he can or might squeeze out a Slam even under such circumstances, provided the conditions favour him, is simply reflective of how damn good the guy was.

Nobody is saying Murray hasn't improved, that's not being argued, but you sound like you want to resurrect your old favourite that this is peak Federer, using a negative projection to corralle agreement.

"what next for Roger" is simply answered. The process of decline, which had been going for some time, will continue, further diminishing his Slam chances. He retains a shot because his standard is still respectable (better than all the players outside the top 4 regardless of age) and if conditions permit he has a chance over the next 6/7 events.

Oh not disputing your last line at all - that is why he is the greatest of all-time. Players have peaks and win when at that point or very close to it. Federer done it from 2003 through to 2012 and was untouchable for long swathes of that time. Other players have come through such as Nadal who peaked early (perhaps) whilst Djokovic and Murray have more slowly scaled the heights and pre-peak suffered losses to a peak Federer. Now it has turned full circle and Federer post-peak (general concensus of opinion) is more often than not losing at slams to Djokovic and now Murray. Pity we never saw these two meet when both were at their peak of development.

Yes, thought you were. 2012 was miles off peak Federer. He's not just gone off a cliff.

bogbrush wrote:Yes, thought you were. 2012 was miles off peak Federer. He's not just gone off a cliff.

Very convenient indeed that. Can I debunk Fed's big wins over Andy then on the clear evidence now that Andy was mentally immature unlike now?

Do as you wish, this isn't about convenience or rationalising any encounters, but fact. I've been telling you for years that this guy has dropped steps. Its been obvious to those who watch the guy closely, now it's got so that nobody can deny, but it's ridiculous to suggest he's just fallen away since 2012.

You wait; Murray will be nothing like he is now in 5 years. It's the one fight none of them can win.

Fair enough and it is therefore crystal clear that Andy is a totally different player in the last six months or so with a mental maturity that was a big achilles heel and then before that we had the physical issues Andy once had.

I think whilst we have nothing much in the lower rankings that are remotely threatening the top four I can see Roger there for some while yet... its when those coming up from the bottom of the ladder start pushing deep into the tournaments then I think he will need to take a closer look at his position.. by that time Rafa too if his knees show signs of not withstanding the gruelling five set matches he gets involved in. It just that Roger will have to overcome the inevitable disappointment of maybe not managing the finals which he has always taken for granted

I think he's won his last slam away from grass - USO is only marginally less attritional than Aus O these days.

He'll carry on playing to a high standard until he doesn't enjoy it enough to continue making the required effort -

This could be his last year, or he could surprise us and carry on playing for as long as the likes of his good friend Tommy Haas - i.e. another 3-4 years.

He'll always be an elegant on-court presence, and he'll continue being good enough to beat most people in the draw for quite a while if he persists.

You are wetting your pants a bit too early cc. Slow hard courts are the worst possible match up for Fed against Murray. Federer didn't get to the final here since 2010. I can't remember one single ace from Federer in the whole match as an example. Personally I feel the competitors for Murray on this kind of courts are the Djoker or eventually Nadal if he can come back. Good reason to wait another day before doing it.......

Slow hard courts were hunky-dory for Federer in 2009 against Murray JK. And who is wetting their pants but merely pointing out facts unless you care to dispute them?

Put your logical glasses on. Are you one who thinks Federer is physically past it? If so then that is an irreversible trend. He won't win at RG where matches are generally longer and more drawn out. His last big hope is Wimbledon (another six months on the clock so if he is physically shot now he will be then even more so). His big chance will come if Djokovic and Murray (will leave Nadal out of this just now as we do not know how he will fair in his comeback) if and only if Djokovic and Murray are knocked out before the semis. That last happened for Djokovic in the French Open 2010 and for Murray at last year's French Open and that was the first semi he had missed since the US Open 2010 so I would say that possibility is highly unlikely. That being the case Roger could face the prospect that he faced here in having to beat Murray in the semi and Djoko in the Final in a deteriorating physical state. How likely is that?

First of all: it's not down to subjective opinions that a 31 years old in tennis is in the stage of decline. It's the history records of tennis and the expert knowledge of the game that suggest such a basic fact.

My suggestion is to go back to study the record books of tennis, this certainly can help in gaining a less biased view of the game.

As regards to the FO I personally don't rate Federer as a contender and again I think it would be odd to consider him so. On the other hand I wonder why you are so confident Murray can perform well over there, since he never got to a final before and only once to the semis.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Slow hard courts were hunky-dory for Federer in 2009 against Murray JK. And who is wetting their pants but merely pointing out facts unless you care to dispute them?

Put your logical glasses on. Are you one who thinks Federer is physically past it? If so then that is an irreversible trend. He won't win at RG where matches are generally longer and more drawn out. His last big hope is Wimbledon (another six months on the clock so if he is physically shot now he will be then even more so). His big chance will come if Djokovic and Murray (will leave Nadal out of this just now as we do not know how he will fair in his comeback) if and only if Djokovic and Murray are knocked out before the semis. That last happened for Djokovic in the French Open 2010 and for Murray at last year's French Open and that was the first semi he had missed since the US Open 2010 so I would say that possibility is highly unlikely. That being the case Roger could face the prospect that he faced here in having to beat Murray in the semi and Djoko in the Final in a deteriorating physical state. How likely is that?

Well he switched them about at Wimbledon 2012 and did just that.

The bit you try hard to deny is that he is able, well into decline, to challenge the best of today.

This is nothing to do with Murray - this article is about Roger Federer. I don't need to study record books to know that Agassi won a slam at 33 and Connors was competitive well into his 30's. Fans of Federer are the ones insistent he is physically over the top so that being the case where does he go from here is what I am asking in terms of the slams? If JK, you don't feel he is physically shot then fine I can see why you feel he still has another slam win in him as I would feel the same.

You've been told countless times, but lets try it in bullet point fashion;

* he has been past his best for a few years, and that process will only continue.
* his chances therefore get lower.
* he started his decline from a very high level, such that into that process he's been able to contend with the new generation, winning Slams and recapturing #1.
* in certain conditions he is still probably the best - I'm thinking of fast, still conditions such as are found under cover on faster surfaces.
* he's therefore in with a shot at Wimbledon, if the weather and conditions permit, or if draws open up (such as if Murray had been in Djokovic's half and they'd killed each other, or just if a few surprises get sprung).

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Slow hard courts were hunky-dory for Federer in 2009 against Murray JK. And who is wetting their pants but merely pointing out facts unless you care to dispute them?

Put your logical glasses on. Are you one who thinks Federer is physically past it? If so then that is an irreversible trend. He won't win at RG where matches are generally longer and more drawn out. His last big hope is Wimbledon (another six months on the clock so if he is physically shot now he will be then even more so). His big chance will come if Djokovic and Murray (will leave Nadal out of this just now as we do not know how he will fair in his comeback) if and only if Djokovic and Murray are knocked out before the semis. That last happened for Djokovic in the French Open 2010 and for Murray at last year's French Open and that was the first semi he had missed since the US Open 2010 so I would say that possibility is highly unlikely. That being the case Roger could face the prospect that he faced here in having to beat Murray in the semi and Djoko in the Final in a deteriorating physical state. How likely is that?

Well he switched them about at Wimbledon 2012 and did just that.

The bit you try hard to deny is that he is able, well into decline, to challenge the best of today.

Yes Wimbledon 2012 - Hmm I will play my trump card here and remind you that was a pre-peak Murray without the winning mentality which he has now.

I am denying simply the physical constraint are quite as debilitating as you say that is all. Federer looked the younger and fresher in the Tsonga match physically and didn't do him any harm and Tsonga is one of the fittest out there. My chief beef here is that the physicality card is played solely when Roger loses regardless of the opposition and added to with claims that his game is also off but not off enough to handle Tsonga who famously beat Federer in 2010 when Fed (can we presume) was not physically shot on his favourite surface? Puzzler that one. As for Federer being competitive into his 30's isn't mind-boggling as Agassi, Connors, Ivanisevic etc have all proved in the past. It can and has been done and will be in the future as well.

bogbrush wrote:You've been told countless times, but lets try it in bullet point fashion;

* he has been past his best for a few years, and that process will only continue.
* his chances therefore get lower.
* he started his decline from a very high level, such that into that process he's been able to contend with the new generation, winning Slams and recapturing #1.
* in certain conditions he is still probably the best - I'm thinking of fast, still conditions such as are found under cover on faster surfaces.
* he's therefore in with a shot at Wimbledon, if the weather and conditions permit, or if draws open up (such as if Murray had been in Djokovic's half and they'd killed each other, or just if a few surprises get sprung).

Addressing those points:-

Can you give me a specific year when he officially past his best in your eyes and was that purely physical or other parts of his game as well?

Agreed on second point.

Yes I agree with that and has been done by other greats in the past such as Agassi and Connors for instance.

Sorry I have to disagree here and why do conditions have to suit if he is still the best?

Agreed to a point as he needs a heck of a lot of things to fall into position to win but yes a contender there.

"Trump card"

What's this all about?

My God you're reaching; you drag out Agassi, who had the weirdest career slaloms of anyone combined with extraordinary physical preparation, Ivanisavic who fluked one Slam with his mega serve on red hot Wimbledon turf with Pete taken out, and Jimmy Connors, a mentalist.

You don't seem to regard Lendl, McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Becker, etc., etc. endlessly as weightier evidence that age matters.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You've been told countless times, but lets try it in bullet point fashion;

* he has been past his best for a few years, and that process will only continue.
* his chances therefore get lower.
* he started his decline from a very high level, such that into that process he's been able to contend with the new generation, winning Slams and recapturing #1.
* in certain conditions he is still probably the best - I'm thinking of fast, still conditions such as are found under cover on faster surfaces.
* he's therefore in with a shot at Wimbledon, if the weather and conditions permit, or if draws open up (such as if Murray had been in Djokovic's half and they'd killed each other, or just if a few surprises get sprung).

Addressing those points:-

Can you give me a specific year when he officially past his best in your eyes and was that purely physical or other parts of his game as well?

Agreed on second point.

Yes I agree with that and has been done by other greats in the past such as Agassi and Connors for instance.

Sorry I have to disagree here and why do conditions have to suit if he is still the best?

Agreed to a point as he needs a heck of a lot of things to fall into position to win but yes a contender there.

He's been slipping for a good three years. It starts slowly but showed in the error rate of the forehand, which he doesn't dance into position for with anything like the same level. He probably declined like most of them do, from 28 or so.

He isn't the best, he's the best in certain conditions. Those conditions are not unrepeatable, so he still has Slam chances.

Of course there are stacks of players competitive in their 30's but was loathe to go through the whole list. Yes trump card - you know the point that can be made for why one's favourite player wasn't winning slams. For you it is Federer's decline in physical fitness for me it is Murray's lack of winning mentality pre-Olympics last year.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course there are stacks of players competitive in their 30's but was loathe to go through the whole list. Yes trump card - you know the point that can be made for why one's favourite player wasn't winning slams. For you it is Federer's decline in physical fitness for me it is Murray's lack of winning mentality pre-Olympics last year.

Don't be shy, tell me more about these late stage top level improvers.

I think looking at a close to and post-30 player as past his best really isn't news. If fact I can hardly believe anyone would even make an issue of it.
It tell you, Novak and Andy will be shot to pieces by 29/30.

CC - try looking at this graph: http://www.tennis28.com/charts/winner_age.GIF

Whilst Roger might struggle to win another HC slam, he's still favourite at Wimbledon and depending on the half at Roland Garros - he's more than capable to make the final if Nadal and Djokovic are in the same half.

Federer is still the 3rd best player on clay. And if he's drawn with Murray at Roland Garros, Federer beats Murray.

Late stage improvers? Well Lendl for a start took time to crack the code. Sure there are others.

Yes and there are those that remain competitive in slams ie slam semi finalists and finalists. It has happened in the past and will happen again so what Federer is doing is commendable but not ground breaking.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Late stage improvers? Well Lendl for a start took time to crack the code. Sure there are others.

Yes and there are those that remain competitive in slams ie slam semi finalists and finalists. It has happened in the past and will happen again so what Federer is doing is commendable but not ground breaking.

Lendl, who dominated strongly up to 27 and got a couple of AOs at 28 and 29 and his last final at 30, doing nothing much else at Slams after that?

Ivan's "late stage improvement" occurred at 24. Hardly relevant.

What is the point of this article?

Seemed like a genuine question at first but once posters started replying it's become obvious that it was just another one of Craig's attempts at establishing a narrative that only exists in his own head.

Anyone who's been following Federer closely can see that he has been declining for a number of years. Duh, how about stating the obvious, the guy is 31 after all!

Does that mean he's completely rubbish? of course not. Does it even mean that he has absolutely no chance of winning big again? No.

It just means that he cannot produce the same level of tennis that he could 6-7 years ago on a consistent basis. He may still on occasion hit a purple patch and rip through the field but it's becoming more and more an unlikely proposition. That is the nature of decline.

Craig would have us believe that peak Federer has been in operation all these years until this very match and only in this match did he show any signs of slowing down. How very convenient.

Of course the real Murray only emerged at the Olympics, prior to that he was some mentally weak and physically frail specimen.

The truth for both is that it's a continuum. Federer has declined over the years and Murray has gotten better.

Perfectly logical. It's how things usually happen in life. Gradually. Tennis players don't just wake up one morning completely physically shot or transformed into supermen after a bowl of weetabix.

Anyway, as to the original question. As others have stated Federer is still good enough to sneak out some big wins. I'm not going to write him off just yet. He probably needs to pick and choose the tournaments that he really wants to focus on. One thing for sure, consecutive long matches are probably too big of an obstacle to get through in this day and age of brutally physical tennis. Not because Federer can't compete in a one off long match, rather because the recovery time required at his age is longer than the one day you generally get at slams. Anyone who's competed at any level of sport will acknowledge that. As you get older it takes longer to recover.



emancipator

CaledonianCraig wrote:This is nothing to do with Murray - this article is about Roger Federer. I don't need to study record books to know that Agassi won a slam at 33 and Connors was competitive well into his 30's. Fans of Federer are the ones insistent he is physically over the top so that being the case where does he go from here is what I am asking in terms of the slams? If JK, you don't feel he is physically shot then fine I can see why you feel he still has another slam win in him as I would feel the same.

When I said to you to study the records, I didn't mean to have a quick look at wikipedia to find out the odd exception. The truth is: even a decent knowledge of past records might not be enough without a basic understanding of how statistic works. I reckon I am asking a little too much...........

Emancipator yes you made a point there that I alluded to. Federer in his peak was winning slams etc and Murray was evidently not at his peak as he seems to be coming into now. So Murray may have devalued wins against Federer from yesterday onwards but surely then it is only fair to look at that in reverse for Feds wins or his beyond devaluement. Fairness is all I strive for here but is seems some are happy to claim all of Fed's wins down to his brilliance and his brilliance alone whereas that cannot be the case with Murray.

Seriously Craig, you're overly sensitive. Everyone think Murray played really well yesterday. This thing you have where you try to smuggle in your fondest hope that Murray is a match for peak Federer just doesn't hang together.

It doesn't devalue Murray to point out that Federer is well past his best. It doesn't even devalue him to rank him behind Federer. In fact it puts him in great company.

Yes perhaps BB that may be true I just wish people wouldn’t cling to the past though and embrace the tennis on show.

Federer has been sh!t since 2008...