Did we just witness Federer's Last Stand?

[Kieran]

I'm not asking this to be partisan, but it's a question on everyone's lips. Was this the last great chance for Federer to win a final major?

Or is this a shot in the arm for the old guy and will give him confidence going forward?

 

[Riotbeard]

I think he'll end with 17, but I don't think was his last chance. He'll compete in more final, IMO. It's not like this match was gimme, so he may either have more chances or he really had no chances...

I hope to see Fed lose many more slam finals to novak

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was expecting you to start a thread like this. Fed may or may not win another GS.
However, surely this match will be a confidence booster for him after suffering more
than a year of bad results. He showed he can fight with a younger guy seeded #1 for
full 5 sets. This will certainly make him look forward to the rest of the season
despite the loss.

I am not able to look up the stats for winners on long rallies. Djokovic definitely
won the battle of medium rallies (5 to 8 shots). I do think that contrary to general
expectation Fed won the battle of long rallies (9 or more shots). I am just guessing
this based on my observation of the match today and do not have actual stats to
back it up.

Finally, Fed is a good loser and he will easily bounce from the loss.

 

[Front242]

Quite likely yes but who knows with all the talented young guys around beating the top dudes.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think it was his last stand, that if anything he proved that he has more gas. Consider that he did what many thought he couldn't do: compete in a five-setter against one of the two great players in a Slam final, and he almost won.

If the chips fall his way, he could be back in the final at the US Open or the Australian Open. A lot can happen in a year, so who knows about Wimbledon, but he's clearly in great shape so I don't see why he can't stick around and remain competitive a bit longer.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily bet on an 18th Slam, but I think he is capable of winning one.

 

[Front242]

Let's say hypothetically Dimitrov beat Djokovic and won their semi. Well Federer would likely have beaten a guy with first slam jitters, hugely talented or not. He faced a multiple slam champ today but I don't think we'll be waiting too long before a new slam finalist shows up. So the draw is always key. What I find so surprising is that everyone says slow/medium hards are his toughest at this stage, and while I agree, it's strange that he's been most consistent at the AO last few years.

 

[Riotbeard]

Let's say hypothetically Dimitrov beat Djokovic and won their semi. Well Federer would likely have beaten a guy with first slam jitters, hugely talented or not. He faced a multiple slam champ today but I don't think we'll be waiting too long before a new slam finalist shows up. So the draw is always key. What I find so surprising is that everyone says slow/medium hards are his toughest at this stage, and while I agree, it's strange that he's been most consistent at the AO last few years.

I think it's still hard really to pull the upset against him on these surface, but he has virtually no chance against novak or rafa on that surface. He also would have a heck of a time against stan, berdy, or andy.

 

[Front242]

Let's say hypothetically Dimitrov beat Djokovic and won their semi. Well Federer would likely have beaten a guy with first slam jitters, hugely talented or not. He faced a multiple slam champ today but I don't think we'll be waiting too long before a new slam finalist shows up. So the draw is always key. What I find so surprising is that everyone says slow/medium hards are his toughest at this stage, and while I agree, it's strange that he's been most consistent at the AO last few years.

I think it's still hard really to pull the upset against him on these surface, but he has virtually no chance against novak or rafa on that surface. He also would have a heck of a time against stan, berdy, or andy.

He could have a hard time against them but my point is there are lots of emerging talents who can help out. On any day a number or players can beat Stan and Berd and though it takes more of an effort to beat Murray, that can be done too as we just saw on his best surface. That leaves those 3 gone already if that happened. Of course that leaves the toughest two remaining but they're not unbeatable either.

 

[shawnbm]

I think it goes without saying that Federer has demonstrated that he can still match up with the very best over five sets on the biggest stages. If this had been a beatdown by Novak, then I might question whether Roger might be on his last legs. Now, I have more confidence Federer can still legitimately compete with Novak and Andy, although I would have to see him have a stellar match against Rafa before I would think he could still get past the Spanish Bull. But, Roger has shown he is still a mighty competitor who can stand toe to toe in battle. It will be interesting to see if others who are in the top thirty now will be as good at 32 or 33 (which is what Roger will be in New York after this summer). I personally believe he will make another slam final and bag one last major. 18 is the number and he almost got it today; Novak had to play his best major final in terms of quality (his words after the match--not mine) to win this.

 

[DarthFed]

Except he didn't prove he can compete over 5. The problem I see is Roger realistically needs to win 3 out of 4 sets vs the top guys and they only need to win 2 of the first 4 vs. him. The pivotal set was #3 and though Roger fought incredibly well in set 4 he was still easily beaten in the 5th despite all the momentum imaginable.

 

[Kieran]

I was expecting you to start a thread like this. Fed may or may not win another GS.
However, surely this match will be a confidence booster for him after suffering more
than a year of bad results. He showed he can fight with a younger guy seeded #1 for
full 5 sets. This will certainly make him look forward to the rest of the season
despite the loss.

I am not able to look up the stats for winners on long rallies. Djokovic definitely
won the battle of medium rallies (5 to 8 shots). I do think that contrary to general
expectation Fed won the battle of long rallies (9 or more shots). I am just guessing
this based on my observation of the match today and do not have actual stats to
back it up.

Finally, Fed is a good loser and he will easily bounce from the loss.

I must have picked up a bad habit from you, sir.

Fact is, I'm not running this thread for any reason other than to see if people see today as being an energising game by Federer, one that tells him that he can compete with the best at a slam, or will it deflate him?

I happen to think that his record at the majors since he last won Wimbledon isn't one that inspired much confidence, but his use of the larger racket and then bringing in Edberg and charging the net again like it's 1999 show that he's not quite ready to shuffle off the mortal coil just yet...

 

[Front242]

Except he didn't prove he can compete over 5. The problem I see is Roger realistically needs to win 3 out of 4 sets vs the top guys and they only need to win 2 of the first 4 vs. him. The pivotal set was #3 and though Roger fought incredibly well in set 4 he was still easily beaten in the 5th despite all the momentum imaginable.

Yeah, it's just a question of hanging in there against him in a 5th set if you're halfway good 'cos history shows even in his prime his 5th set record is pretty poor. The 3rd set TB for me was the worst patch of play by Roger. Very admirable fight in set 4 but he played a really bad TB to lose set 3. Also thought some of the approach shows were straight of a comic book Roddick style. He looked like a chicken with no head approaching just to get passed and all too often when he gets the ball at the net these days as I mentioned earlier, he hits it right back to his opponent regardless of who they are when he should've hit it the opposite direction to the open court. Wish he'd think clearer and not hit it back to them. It's not even a case of trying to wrong foot them 'cos he doesn't even hit it behind them he simply hits it right back to them all too timidly.

 

[DarthFed]

Regarding this being Roger's last stand, I doubt it, one of Rogers greatest qualities is recovering from a tough loss. He's likely had more gut punching losses than anyone in history at this point. I don't know if he sees this match in particular as a confidence booster but his play for most of the season is. The only bad patch was Rome and RG following the birth of the 2nd set of twins.

They could play this match again next year and I wouldn't mind Roger's chances. I think the forehand let him down big today and made him play passive from sets 2 through most of 4 until his back was against the wall.

 

[El Dude]

Let us not forget that Roger is currently ranked #3 in the world (after Wimbledon), so he's hardly falling off...and that after falling to as low as #8 in March.

Also, his overall winning percentage is 84%, which is in line with his post-peak numbers. He fell from 95% in his best year, 2006, to 88% in 2007 to 81% in 2008, then back up to 84%, 83%, 84% and 86% from 2009-2012. He fell to 73% last year, but now is looking very similar to the 2009-2012 level.

The point being, things looked dire last year but he righted the ship and his success rate is as it has been over the last seven years.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I don't think this is his last chance of a Major; however, the draw has to open up for him a little bit to win his 18th Slam title.

I still think Wimbledon is his best chance to win his 18th title followed by the US Open.

 

[Front242]

Let's be honest here, the draw helps everyone, not just Roger But the older you get the more it counts for sure.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I have said this before, I will repeat it:Anything Roger does at this point is gravy. The loss today? In my opinion, it ADDS to his legacy, not the other way around. He played a Wimbledon final , took it all the way, came up short. Way better than losing in the round of 16, or quarters or semis.

Was it the last dance? Who knows...the guy loves playing and competing. If he can stay healthy, I would not just write him off. Because he showed today that for the last two weeks, he was still better than 126 players out of 128.

And the guy cares...that's the important thing. He is almost 33 and still shedding tears for something he has won for 7 times before.

 

[August]

Last year, I was the last to give up the hope after Roger's weak performances. I believed he'd still have what it takes to win a slam.

Now, despite playing much better, I'm not sure about Roger winning another slam. My opinion now is that he'd be lucky to win another slam.

It's not anymore in his racquet. Most of the match, the momentum was on Nole's side. In the end, Nole won in 5. Compare that to 2012 SF, Roger won in 4. Roger isn't on the 2012 level. He'd need others underperforming to win a slam. And I cannot see him winning a slam outside Wimbledon. So, he has once chance per year, and every year he's one year older. Very difficult for him to win a slam. My bet would be Roger won't win another slam. But I hope he proves me wrong.

 

[Riotbeard]

I have said this before, I will repeat it:Anything Roger does at this point is gravy. The loss today? In my opinion, it ADDS to his legacy, not the other way around. He played a Wimbledon final , took it all the way, came up short. Way better than losing in the round of 16, or quarters or semis.

Was it the last dance? Who knows...the guy loves playing and competing. If he can stay healthy, I would not just write him off. Because he showed today that for the last two weeks, he was still better than 126 players out of 128.

And the guy cares...that's the important thing. He is almost 33 and still shedding tears for something he has won for 7 times before.

Well said.

 

[atttomole]

Except he didn't prove he can compete over 5. The problem I see is Roger realistically needs to win 3 out of 4 sets vs the top guys and they only need to win 2 of the first 4 vs. him. The pivotal set was #3 and though Roger fought incredibly well in set 4 he was still easily beaten in the 5th despite all the momentum imaginable.

Yeah, it's just a question of hanging in there against him in a 5th set if you're halfway good 'cos history shows even in his prime his 5th set record is pretty poor. The 3rd set TB for me was the worst patch of play by Roger. Very admirable fight in set 4 but he played a really bad TB to lose set 3. Also thought some of the approach shows were straight of a comic book Roddick style. He looked like a chicken with no head approaching just to get passed and all too often when he gets the ball at the net these days as I mentioned earlier, he hits it right back to his opponent regardless of who they are when he should've hit it the opposite direction to the open court. Wish he'd think clearer and not hit it back to them. It's not even a case of trying to wrong foot them 'cos he doesn't even hit it behind them he simply hits it right back to them all too timidly.

At some point I felt he should have stopped going to the net because he was being burned most of the time he went there. He seemed to go to the net with the wrong approach shots, clearly exposing himself to passing shots from Djokovic. This was not his last stand. He will have more chances I think.