20 Slams, meh.

Marat Safin once said

In the history of tennis, everybody’s an underachiever. Agassi should have been winning, I don’t know, 15 Grand Slams. Sampras should have been winning 20 Grand Slams. Federer should be winning — already should have 25.

Am I the only one (aside from Marat) that wishes Rogerer would start to take this sport seriously and stop slacking off?

He did slack off - 2013-16 - as BBC notes - http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/42852967 .

I would not be surprised that he is playing W past the age Pancho was.

Hi laverfan, how are you?

I was being a bit silly, more seriously though I do hope now the big 20 is out of the way Federer can play freely for the rest of the year. I have high hopes for the US Open!

In some ways, you can see what Safin meant. I recall thinking a few years back that Serena, for one, should have won way more slams. Well, now she is well beyond 20 and could still win more.
   Agassi dropped off the face of the earth at one point in his career at a time when he could have dominated, only to return and have almost a "second" career and much success.
   God only knows how many more slams Rafa, Rog and Djoko would have won if they had been playing at a time when they were the "big one" rather than part of the "big four".

reckoner

I think the only thing that could prevent Federer playing freely is injury - he genuinely has nothing to prove, and anything he wins now is the cherry on top of the icing on an already over-sized cake.

Unlike others, I wouldn't be surprised to see him play Roland Garros (assuming he comes through the spring HC season unscathed) - really the only thing missing from the Federer record book is a calendar year grand slam, and while I don't think he will do it this year, if I were him my attitude would be 'why not try...' . I do sometimes wonder what Fed's career record would look like in the absence of Nadal...

As an aside, I note that Federer's success over the last 13 months means he is back to being (quite comfortably) the highest prize money earner in ATP history: currently stands at just over $115M, compared with just short of $110M for Djokovic (both well ahead of Nadal with a paltry $94M).

Also, there is a chance of Fed reclaiming #1 in about a month's time - he has 45 points from Dubai while Rafa has 300 points from Acapulco, both dropping in the first week of March. Rafa's current lead is only 155 points, so if neither play that week Fed would go back to the top. Similarly, if both play and win their respective tournaments, Fed takes back #1. Even if he does, it is likely to be short-lived as Fed is then defending 2000 points from IW/Miami and Rafa only 690.

Meh is a childish word.

Has anyone noticed how Roger Federer has a very large mouth? It's like the mouth of a python about to swallow whole a large rodent.

Mochyn du wrote:Meh is a childish word.

Has anyone noticed how Roger Federer has a very large mouth?  It's like the mouth of a python about to swallow whole a large rodent.

What does that make Andy Murray's mouth?

@dummy_half

You're exactly right, a potential injury at this late stage is exactly what could scupper things. Like at the tail end of last year - if he hadn't tweaked his back the USO was there for the taking. Unfortunately that's why I don't see him risking a good run at Wimbledon by participating in the clay season, much as I'd like to see him try out his improved backhand at Roland Garros! Maybe next year?

I've read he's considering taking up a wild card for Dubai to regain (albeit briefly) #1, the decision is expected next week.

@Mochyn

The word meh became widely used in 1990 - that's almost 30 years ago. Keep up, old timer!

Well we’re a little over 24 hours on, and I still can’t quite get my head around the scale of what Roger Federer achieved yesterday in Melbourne.

After Wimbledon 2012 - which many, many people regarded as a last swansong (there was even talk that he might announce a sudden retirement on the back of it) - the years rolled by with a notable absence of any additions to the (impressive in itself) tally of 17.

Ok, he was still competing very well (mostly), maintaining a high ranking, and going deep in Slams. There were several semis .... and even Finals. But as ‘close’ as he was, I actually saw this pattern as compelling evidence that he was very unlikely to lift another of the top titles. To me, it was rather like a talented youngster who is on the rise, but as yet lacks the experience to see things through when it comes  to the crunch match. In Fed’s case, he was at the complete opposite end of the age and career spectrum, and I felt these deep runs were  a sign that he could no longer quite cut it at the very top and that we were, in reality, witnessing the start of what would be a gradual - and totally understandable - decline. Next, we would see him regularly failing to go any deeper than, say, R3 ...... and that would inevitably culminate in a decision to finally hang up the racquets for good (maybe join the over-35 circuit .... ?) as Father Time did its damage.

It was in early 2016 (AFAIK ?) that we learnt he had hired Ivan Ljubicic as a new member of his coaching team, after parting with Edberg. I remember thinking at the time that he must have had his reasons (Federer is not known for making any decisions lightly !) but I also remember saying to myself .... hmm ....what’s the point really .....?. I struggled to imagine what else he is going to learn about playing tennis after all these years ; especially as he really can’t have much longer to go before calling it a day as far as the main Tour is concerned.

So many column inches have been written over the years about Federer, across the globe, that I sometimes wonder what, if anything, is left to be added. Especially by the likes of me . In short I just find it barely believable that he has won three more Slams at this age, all within the space of just 13 months, and with a real possibility that he is still not done yet - whether with Slams, or with ATP titles of any level.

reckoner wrote:Marat Safin once said

In the history of tennis, everybody’s an underachiever...

...

Marat Safin was wrong.  Tennis is a zero sum game in terms of trophies. For some to underachieve others have to overachieve.  Hence it is not possible for everyone to underachieve.

lags72 wrote:Well we’re a little over 24 hours on, and I still can’t quite get my head around the scale of what Roger Federer achieved yesterday in Melbourne.

It is quite astonishing, it really is. I'm still processing it!

As for his 4.5 year drought at slams - he's talked so frankly about it since he's been back, it speaks of a man truly at peace with himself and his place in the sport.

It's not just that he's won 3 out of the last 4 slams he entered, it's the way he's played, the generosity towards his rivals, the evident sense of enjoyment on court... ah it's sublime to see him playing well again!

No name Bertie wrote:
... Marat Safin was wrong. ...

I think by "everyone" he meant the top tier.

I think that Federer has underachieved at certain points in his career. His efforts in US Open/Wimbledon finals in 2014/2015 perhaps merited one slam in one those years. Djokovic was the better player, but Federer was playing at the same level as now. Perhaps Fed deserved 1 out of those 3 finals rather than 0 from 3.

Perhaps he also underachieved in 2005-2007 by not taking one French Open title from the young Rafa Nadal. In 2005 Rafa didn't play well and a top Federer performance would have taken the match that day (semi final). Then 2011 was close. Perhaps out of all the FO matches with Rafa Roger underachieved by not sneaking 1 of the I think 5 matches somehow.

Perhaps he should have taken AO 2009 in four sets (all those break points!). In fact he generally underachieved against Rafa in break points at least from 2006 to 2009, and maybe in general.

US Open 2009 - on another day perhaps wins in 4.

2008 and 2013 - not great years mono/injury/ other issues.

He may also have under achieved in 2001 and 2002 by being a late starter and taking time to get to grips with his personality and on court attitude and becoming more consistent. If he has been as good then as Nadal, Djokovic or even Murray were at the same age, his first slam might have come before 2003 because there was no dominating great then. Even though in practice he was nowhere near.

On the other hand, he can't complain overall about his injury record, his success rate and quality of opposition from 2004-2007, and he has certainly over achieved in the last 12 (OK, 13) months.

Overall, it seems to even out, so I don't think he has particularly under or over achieved relative to talent and opportunity.

However I don't think at any point before 2017 - at ANY point in his career before then 20 would have looked like a bad number and at most points it would have looked like a very good number. Before 2003 Wimbledon 5 might have seemed like a fair target, by end of 2004 10 might have seemed like a fair target, by end of 2006 maybe 15. By end of 2007 20 maybe. That might have been the high water mark of expectation since he already had 12 and was winning 2-3 a year.

But then after 2008 and the 2009 Australian Open it looked like it would be a challenge again just to beat Pete Sampras and get to 15. Then, he achieved this by Wimbledon 2009. I don't think many people saw 20 as likely at that point, though.

And then 2013-2015 I think just adding one more looked realistic. Not many of us saw that he would somehow maintain his level.

HB

Interesting breakdown. Obviously 20 in total and a career grand slam is beyond outstanding, and the late career resurgence has taken many by surprise. I do recall some discussion on here a couple of years ago suggesting something like this might happen - Fed's level as he's aged has dropped very slowly if at all, perhaps because he is more reliant on shot making and less on speed of court coverage, while we speculated the others of the big 4 might suffer more rapid declines through physical wear and tear. The next generation (say 24-28 now) have shown themselves unable to step up and beat the old guard (AO semi finalists being 21, just 23, 29 nearing 30 and 493), so there is a window for Fed to win some more before the 20ish year olds really come through.

Of course Fed has probably blown at least 3 slams - should have beaten Del Potro and Djokoivic at the USO, and had his chances at Wimbledon 08. Rafa at RG has always been a challenge, but there have been a couple of half chances - 2006 final Fed dominated the first set but couldn't sustain the level. .