Can Roger win another Slam?

[El Dude]

True, jhar26, but this is a bit of a new era in which players are maintaining a high level longer. Consider that 40% of the top 20 are age 30 or older, and 20% are age 33 or older. So there's that.

There's also the fact that Roger is playing at a level just about unequaled by any player his age since, I don't know, Ken Rosewall? Andre Agassi turned 34 in 2004 when he finished #8 and then #7 the following year. So that's pretty close. Jimmy Connors turned 34 in 1986 when he was #8, the had two more good year at #4 and #7. So it isn't unprecedented that a great player remains very good into his mid-30s, although it is quite rare (Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander, McEnroe, and Borg didn't or couldn't do it).

The 1970s and before were a different era. Ken Rosewall won a Slam in 1972 at age 37 and made the Wimbledon and US Open finals shortly before turning 40.

Anyhow, if you look at Roger right now he's not significantly declined from where he was 5 years ago. I'd say he's not quite as consistent as in 2012, but he can reach a similar level. No, he's not the player he was in 2003-09, his extended peak, but he is maybe 90% of that player and 90% of peak Roger is still better than everyone else but peak Novak (2011-present) and peak Rafa (2008-13), which is why he's #2 in the world.

What is perhaps most encouraging is that he seems fairly stable at his current level, like he could maintain it for another two or three years. He'll finish this year #2-3 and I see no reason why he can't remain in the top 5 for another two years (2016-17), and then maybe the top 10 for another year or two after that (2018-19), retiring in 2019 or 2020 at 38 or 39 years old. But if he's going to win a Slam, it probably has to be in the next two years.

 

[isabelle]

No way

 

[lob]

I don't know whether he will win another one but at this point I have learnt accept whatever it is in him that prevents him from capitalizing on the so many big opportunities.

The way I look at it, by now, he would already have put the final behind him. So who am I to feel unhappy for him?

 

[DarthFed]

When you look at Wimbledon and USO the thing that stands out is how much worse Roger's forehand is. I think Fed is hitting the backhand as well as he has in a long time, he's serving as well as ever, doing great at net, but his forehand, once the deadliest shot in men's tennis, is now barely above average. That's the only reason he's done nothing at the slams these past couple years. If I'm Edberg that's the next thing to try to improve on.

 

[Denis]

When you look at Wimbledon and USO the thing that stands out is how much worse Roger's forehand is. I think Fed is hitting the backhand as well as he has in a long time, he's serving as well as ever, doing great at net, but his forehand, once the deadliest shot in men's tennis, is now barely above average. That's the only reason he's done nothing at the slams these past couple years. If I'm Edberg that's the next thing to try to improve on.

Agreed, that shot is not as good as it once was.

 

[Riotbeard]

When you look at Wimbledon and USO the thing that stands out is how much worse Roger's forehand is. I think Fed is hitting the backhand as well as he has in a long time, he's serving as well as ever, doing great at net, but his forehand, once the deadliest shot in men's tennis, is now barely above average. That's the only reason he's done nothing at the slams these past couple years. If I'm Edberg that's the next thing to try to improve on.

Agreed, that shot is not as good as it once was.

It had a bit of a resurgence in Cincy with a lot of great one-two points, but in general, it's a shadow of it's greatness.

 

[Dhilip kumar]

If he can pull off those moments, those break points, atleast one out of every three or chances, he can definitely win more than one.

Novak - The Man of Moments.

But on Roger, it does'nt matter he can win one more major or not.
He is not just a champion. He is an artist who adds colours to Tennis.
And am sure he will add one more in 2016.

 

[ftan]

Remember Cilic won .. Roger has the goods, they just hav to click for one tournament. He needs help at this point yes, but its still very much possible

 

[Didi]

When you look at Wimbledon and USO the thing that stands out is how much worse Roger's forehand is. I think Fed is hitting the backhand as well as he has in a long time, he's serving as well as ever, doing great at net, but his forehand, once the deadliest shot in men's tennis, is now barely above average. That's the only reason he's done nothing at the slams these past couple years. If I'm Edberg that's the next thing to try to improve on.

I agree in general but it's not like Fed's forehand never broke down under pressure in his peak years. I mean take a look at 2007 when he lost back to back early round matches to Guillermo Canas in Indian Wells and Miami, when he lost his opener to Volandri in straights in Rome, when he was completely outplayed and pushed by Nadal to five sets at Wimbledon, when he lost to Novak at Montreal and was outplayed by him in the US Open final, trailing 5-6, 0-40 in the first and 1-4 in the second set to Nole who was nowehre near the player he is now. And when Nalbandian outplayed him in Paris and Madrid in the fall of that season.

If those results I just mentioned had happened to a 33-34 year old Roger, we would still be disappointed but it was actually his peak. My point is that while one can make a legitimate claim that Roger's forehand in isolation is the single most dominant shot in tennis history, it is also the one shot that let him down in the most important situations even in his peak. We always tend to say that Rafa broke down his backhand but for me it was Roger's forehand (in neutral rallies) that let him down the most in that rivalry.

The same happened on sunday's final. Roger was hitting his forehand like a dream the entire summer from Wimbledon, to Cincinnati to New York and yet when it mattered the most he was shanking a tons of routine forehands against Novak in both the Wimbledon final but especially on sunday.

 

[DarthFed]

When you look at Wimbledon and USO the thing that stands out is how much worse Roger's forehand is. I think Fed is hitting the backhand as well as he has in a long time, he's serving as well as ever, doing great at net, but his forehand, once the deadliest shot in men's tennis, is now barely above average. That's the only reason he's done nothing at the slams these past couple years. If I'm Edberg that's the next thing to try to improve on.

I agree in general but it's not like Fed's forehand never broke down under pressure in his peak years. I mean take a look at 2007 when he lost back to back early round matches to Guillermo Canas in Indian Wells and Miami, when he lost his opener to Volandri in straights in Rome, when he was completely outplayed and pushed by Nadal to five sets at Wimbledon, when he lost to Novak at Montreal and was outplayed by him in the US Open final, trailing 5-6, 0-40 in the first and 1-4 in the second set to Nole who was nowehre near the player he is now. And when Nalbandian outplayed him in Paris and Madrid in the fall of that season.

If those results I just mentioned had happened to a 33-34 year old Roger, we would still be disappointed but it was actually his peak. My point is that while one can make a legitimate claim that Roger's forehand in isolation is the single most dominant shot in tennis history, it is also the one shot that let him down in the most important situations even in his peak. We always tend to say that Rafa broke down his backhand but for me it was Roger's forehand (in neutral rallies) that let him down the most in that rivalry.

The same happened on sunday's final. Roger was hitting his forehand like a dream the entire summer from Wimbledon, to Cincinnati to New York and yet when it mattered the most he was shanking a tons of routine forehands against Novak in both the Wimbledon final but especially on sunday.

Good points. I look at it as though Roger's forehand was a big (perhaps biggest) reason he was so dominant. Sure it had moments where it was misfiring but on a day to day basis it was the biggest weapon for the most dominant player in history. When you look at Roger now these past couple years I think the forehand and return are what's keeping him from winning a slam or two.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'll have to say that I will be surprised if Federer ends his career with 17 Slams. He is just one Djokovic upset away from lifting the trophy. Not impossible. Maybe he'll get his "Pennetta Surprise". The Internet will literally blow up.

Would not it be fun, if that happens in RG of all the places. :exclamation:

 

[El Dude]

But on Roger, it does'nt matter he can win one more major or not.
He is not just a champion. He is an artist who adds colours to Tennis.
And am sure he will add one more in 2016.

This, more than the winning, is why he's my favorite player and why I'm going to miss him so much when he's gone: he just plays with such beauty, such artistry. There is no other player like him in that regard.

This is also why I'm so disappointed in Grigor Dimitrov - he was (is) the only younger player who has any semblance of that kind of artistry. I don't know yet about the really young guys, but its my hope that one of the players born in the mid to late 90s has that kind of game.

p.s. Welcome to Tennis Frontier!

 

[Kirijax]

I'll have to say that I will be surprised if Federer ends his career with 17 Slams. He is just one Djokovic upset away from lifting the trophy. Not impossible. Maybe he'll get his "Pennetta Surprise". The Internet will literally blow up.

Would not it be fun, if that happens in RG of all the places. :exclamation:

That would be something. I would prefer Wimbledon but RG is good.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

physically fedster has been really sharp all season. his revamped brand of attacking tennis (although not so much v djoko in usopen final lulz) along with his oncourt 'aura' really spooks players used to more baseline tennis..

I really think he could snag another masters this season or even the world tour finals.

 

[Billie]

After last year's win by Cilic, Flavia's this year in New York, I am surprised that people wonder if any good player, let alone Roger, can win a major. Yes, he would need a bit of luck, favorable schedule, but frankly, who doesn't need that. It is more important than ever to plan and schedule carefully and then hope that tennis gods look a bit kindly at him. Or he may need to play against a hostile crowd to get a bit of an edge to him, sort of like it helps Nole.

 

[El Dude]

Roger will never play against a hostile crowd. I mean, who hates him except for maybe isabelle?

 

[nehmeth]

Roger will never play against a hostile crowd. I mean, who hates him except for maybe isabelle?

Isabelle doesn't "hate" him. I like when she calls him Mr. Vavrinec. :snicker

Kieran isn't a fan. I'm not a fan, but I do appreciate the tennis.

If the Serbian Open were still a tournament and Roger went to play Novak there, I think Novak would be the favorite.

 

[isabelle]

Roger will never play against a hostile crowd. I mean, who hates him except for maybe isabelle?

I don't hate him, hate is too strong, I don't like him is more appropriate and I'm not the only one, if you could seee some comments on French forums, you'ld realize that he's not exactly French's fav player.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Aside from French players he is by far the crowd favorite at RG. I'd say that's more telling than some people posting on a forum.

 

[Carol]

The good tennis followers don't hate any player, we can like or dislike this one more than the other one but to hate is an awful feeling which unfortunately you can see them (haters) on the blogs