What Now For Roger?

First topic message reminder :

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?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Federer has been sh!t since 2008...

Not sh1t, but I know what you mean. Not all there.

I remember watching him through that wimbledon. Although he made it to the finals without losing a set, I was never wowed by any of his matches. I was waiting to be thrilled like I had been the years before. Even in the final I was left thinking Nadal will be screwed when Fed actually starts playing.

Yes, it was laboured throughout.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Pity we never saw these two meet when both were at their peak of development.

cc, to me this sums up where you are coming from. A lot of what you say makes sense but somewhere in you there is temptation to view Murray as being on par with Roger. I imagine you would not outright put them as equals, but there just seems to be that lingering desire to not view Murray as inferior.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I remember watching him through that wimbledon. Although he made it to the finals without losing a set, I was never wowed by any of his matches. I was waiting to be thrilled like I had been the years before. Even in the final I was left thinking Nadal will be screwed when Fed actually starts playing.

Yes I know exactly what you mean.

For about two years, from 08-09, I kept thinking Fed's just in slump, he's gonna hit form at any minute but it never happened. Instead the more logical and expected thing happened; his game continued to deteriorate with the ocaasional throwback match.

C'est la vie.

Thing is 2008 his level didn't just drop a bit, he lost to all kinds of players and he couldn't keep the ball in the court anymore. It was that year that I started worrying about him shanking the ball all the time especially at important points. I didn't know so much about all the subtle foot movement required to hit a forehand at the time but I guess that's what must have been starting to go.

To be honest a natural decline I would have expected to set in from around 2010 not as soon as it did. For example when Nadal comes back and plays amazingly well, he'll be at the same stage Fed was then but his prospects look so much better.

Here are all the slam winners aged 30+

Fed is at No. 11. The AO would have put him at No. 8, as would this year's Wimby. Looking at how rare it is in the last 30 years (Agassi, Sampras, Fed in oldest 15) it really is pushing it a bit to expect him to be in the list twice and 2 more slams wins looks almost impossible..

Edit - in fact, only Agassi in the last 40 years has won a slam older than Fed is now.

1 Ken Rosewall 1972 Australian 37y 2m 1d
2 Ken Rosewall 1971 Australian 36y 2m 12d
3 Ken Rosewall 1970 US Open 35y 10m 11d
4 Andres Gimeno 1972 Roland Garros 34y 10m 1d
5 Ken Rosewall 1968 Roland Garros 33y 7m 7d
6 Andre Agassi 2003 Australian 32y 8m 28d
7 Arthur Ashe 1975 Wimbledon 31y 11m 25d
8 Rod Laver 1969 US Open 31y 1m 0d
9 Pete Sampras 2002 US Open 31y 0m 27d
10 Jimmy Connors 1983 US Open 31y 0m 9d
11 Roger Federer 2012 Wimbledon 30y 11m 0d
12 Rod Laver 1969 Wimbledon 30y 10m 26d
13 Rod Laver 1969 Roland Garros 30y 9m 30d
14 Andre Agassi 2001 Australian 30y 8m 30d
15 John Newcombe 1975 Australian 30y 7m 9d
16 Rod Laver 1969 Australian 30y 5m 18d
17 Andres Gomez 1990 Roland Garros 30y 3m 14d
18 Jimmy Connors 1982 US Open 30y 0m 10d
18 Petr Korda 1998 Australian 30y 0m 9d

Rosewall is on that list 4 times and surely Rog is at least comparable to him? I want four more slams from him at least!

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Thing is 2008 his level didn't just drop a bit, he lost to all kinds of players and he couldn't keep the ball in the court anymore. It was that year that I started worrying about him shanking the ball all the time especially at important points. I didn't know so much about all the subtle foot movement required to hit a forehand at the time but I guess that's what must have been starting to go.

To be honest a natural decline I would have expected to set in from around 2010 not as soon as it did. For example when Nadal comes back and plays amazingly well, he'll be at the same stage Fed was then but his prospects look so much better.

I agree, his form in 2008 dropped off a cliff. I expect the illness took away a lot of preparation time and he had to play catch up the whole season. Factor in the dent in confidence and you have the catastrophe that was 2008.

Fifth, agree about the shanking bit. It seemed like all of a sudden he was shanking everything, he could not stay in a rally. I think 2008-10 were the worst in that regard. He has shanked less since the late 2010/early 2011. Cannot tell why. Did he improve something or is he just trying to do less with his shots?

Thx Julius.

We tend to forget Goran was only 29 when he won Wimbledon.

It is surprising to ask 'What now for Roger'? There is a smell of an obituary and a funereal sense to this article. I am not sure why. #2 seed lost to #3 seed. It is not a catastrophe, is it?

There is an age differential between Murray and Federer. It is a tribute to Federer that he can still compete with Murray/Djokovic who are younger, and then some, with Tomic/Raonic, et al. They are very capable of beating each other.

As I have stated, Murray is the best tactician that I know of, in some sense, even better than Federer himself. At times, Federer was looking at his own mirror image with the strategy that Murray laid out, which also has the clear signature of Lendl, something that Gilbert/McLagan/Valleverdu clearly lacked. Federer's frustrations were very clear during the match, a testament to Murray. It was amazing to see Federer problem-solve on the court, what a genius (straight from Patrick McEnroe on ESPN).

That match also would have shown Lendl and team, what areas to address for the match with Djokovic. What Federer exposed, will be further exploited by Djokovic. It is a very interesting final. If Murray wins, he will have beaten Djokovic in two consecutive slam finals played by them against each other. If Djokovic wins, he would equal Federer with 4 AOs.

An age comparison with Muscles, Jimbo, Agassi or Lendl, is denying the individuality of each player, or career paths. It is like asking why Nadal won RG in 2005 or asking why Murray had to wait till 2012 to win his first slam.

Can Federer win another slam? IMVHO, yes.