Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[Nekro]

He said he still has so much in the tank and he wants to keep playing, this is gonna be a great year:


"I guess in a faraway place it did," he said. "But then again, the joy was so big, and I kept on watching the reaction of my team when I won the match point in Australia, and how they were jumping for joy."

Rather than it being a reason to retire, the 18-time Grand Slam champion suggested the victory could be a reason to keep playing. “I understand people who say, ‘Oh, this would be a perfect moment,’" he said. "But I feel like I’ve put in so much work, and I love it so much. And I still have so much in the tank.

"The goal, when I took my break of six months, was doing this for the next couple years, not just for one tournament.”

 

[Ricardo]

Grandpa Fed wants to play 3 more years, that is so exciting. I wonder though, how many losses he'll want to take before calling it a day? at some point players will beat him very often, then the fun stops...

 

[DarthFed]

Grandpa Fed wants to play 3 more years, that is so exciting. I wonder though, how many losses he'll want to take before calling it a day? at some point players will beat him very often, then the fun stops...

I think as long as he's healthy and still a legit contender at slams he will play. Aside from injury the only thing that may "knock" him out of the game soon is another Wimbledon title. I knew there was no chance he wouldn't retire after winning this AO in large part due to him badly wanting another Wimbledon. If he wins it this year it wouldn't shock me at all if he hangs up the racquet after this season. But then again if he wins Wimbledon or any other slam he may say "now I have to go after 20". The greatest athletes are the most greedy.

 

[Federberg]

I think as long as he's healthy and still a legit contender at slams he will play. Aside from injury the only thing that may "knock" him out of the game soon is another Wimbledon title. I knew there was no chance he wouldn't retire after winning this AO in large part due to him badly wanting another Wimbledon. If he wins it this year it wouldn't shock me at all if he hangs up the racquet after this season. But then again if he wins Wimbledon or any other slam he may say "now I have to go after 20". The greatest athletes are the most greedy.

I keep saying it... you don't retire when you're still one of the 3 or 4 best players in your sport. When the crowds go crazy when you appear. My biggest recollection when I met him was that he said Mirka wanted him to keep on playing even more than he did. He's never going to be as good at anything else in his life, so why stop?

 

[DarthFed]

Very true. I know Sampras has expressed that he regrets having left the game after winning the USO at age 31. After playing a sport your whole life it is going to be tough to give it up and a lot of athletes don't know what to do with themselves when they retire. Roger is going to be 36 in August so if he did retire after this year I don't think he'd stress about leaving the game early like Sampras did. But like Fed said, he thinks he has a lot left in the tank and he's still obviously a threat to win more majors.

 

[MartyB]

I keep saying it... you don't retire when you're still one of the 3 or 4 best players in your sport. When the crowds go crazy when you appear. My biggest recollection when I met him was that he said Mirka wanted him to keep on playing even more than he did. He's never going to be as good at anything else in his life, so why stop?

I agree. If you are one of the 3 or 4 best of anything in the world at what you do why do you need to retire? I'm going to be a little cynical here even though I'm a huge Fed fan. He is a corporation at this point. He is the highest paid athlete in the world with endorsements that are probably for at least several more years. His fame & notoriety are beyond the tennis world. I know I will get flack for this but here goes he is "the face of tennis" right now and even when he was out for 6 months ( Serena may argue that point. Lol). As others have stated I believe he will play a schedule that reflects his age & his belief where he can do well. Does he have a shot at 1 or maybe 2 more GS why not? I'm glad he's going to be around for 2 more years I suspect. Tennis won't be the same without him.

 

[isabelle]

I agree. If you are one of the 3 or 4 best of anything in the world at what you do why do you need to retire? I'm going to be a little cynical here even though I'm a huge Fed fan. He is a corporation at this point. He is the highest paid athlete in the world with endorsements that are probably for at least several more years. His fame & notoriety are beyond the tennis world. I know I will get flack for this but here goes he is "the face of tennis" right now and even when he was out for 6 months ( Serena may argue that point. Lol). As others have stated I believe he will play a schedule that reflects his age & his belief where he can do well. Does he have a shot at 1 or maybe 2 more GS why not? I'm glad he's going to be around for 2 more years I suspect. Tennis won't be the same without him.

Borg retired when he was at his best but he must be the only one

 

[El Dude]

That is basically correct, although John McEnroe had surpassed him - or at least the writing was on the wall that his reign was over. Now we'll never know if Borg would have been able to fight back and challenge Mac, but he did seem to have slipped a notch below Mac by the end of 1981.

As for Roger, I agree that he won't retire as long as he is reaching Slams semis and is one of the top few players in the sport. If he hits another patch like 2013, and/or it becomes clear that he's no longer a top five player, I think he'll complete that year and then retire.

On the other hand, I think the rankings are less important than how he does at Slams. He could do a Serena for a year or two and play 10-12 tournaments. I could see a scenario where he plays 15 tournaments this year, 13 in 2018, and 10 in 2019 and then calls it quits after Basel.

I hope Roger plays as long as possible, although I just don't want to hear him ever say, "I'm 39 years old and busting my but out here!" (hopefully some will know the reference). Still, seeing him play at 40 would be kind of cool...but that's still four and a half years away.

 

[Ricardo]

That is basically correct, although John McEnroe had surpassed him - or at least the writing was on the wall that his reign was over. Now we'll never know if Borg would have been able to fight back and challenge Mac, but he did seem to have slipped a notch below Mac by the end of 1981.

That's an overly simplistic approach to look at why Borg really retired, and its really looking at surface. It's well known he couldn't get over personal problems, and there was death threat, which must have affected him in some way. Players don't just give up when they are surpassed by somebody initially, and we are talking about a thorough bred champion here. Borg was still undisputed king of clay, and was still getting to the finals on other surfaces. Your opinion that he would chicken out at the sight of a real challenger is wrong.

 

[shawnbm]

I concur there were other things at okay with the Angelic Assassin, and I don't believe for a moment anyone was going to beat him in Paris in 1982 or 1983 at the very least. Yes, it's conjecture but pretty good unless he were to get injured. But Borg was spiritually and emotionally injured with his lack of a full life, his grinding daily routine, his losses to John in 1980-81 at the majors, especially Wimbledon and the constant media scrutiny. This was the Seventies and early Eighties--he was like a rock star and under a lot of pressure.

 

[Federberg]

^Yes that's fair. And it raises an issue about the whole obsession with slam counts now. If the likes of Borg were as focussed on that stuff as the current group are, there's no doubt they would have won more. So it's kind of silly to make comparisons across time when people in the past didn't care. I agree with @shawnbm I can't see how Borg wouldn't have had at least two more slams. The man was almost as invincible on the red stuff as Rafa

 

[El Dude]

That's an overly simplistic approach to look at why Borg really retired, and its really looking at surface. It's well known he couldn't get over personal problems, and there was death threat, which must have affected him in some way. Players don't just give up when they are surpassed by somebody initially, and we are talking about a thorough bred champion here. Borg was still undisputed king of clay, and was still getting to the finals on other surfaces. Your opinion that he would chicken out at the sight of a real challenger is wrong.

I agree, because that is not what I said at all. Holy misinterpretation, Batman!

 

[britbox]

Borg was told he had to play 10 events in 1982 and he'd only committed to 7. On that basis, he was told he would have to play the qualifiers for the Grand Slam events. He wasn't going to do it. He didn't formally retire until 1983 but still played invitationals in 82 and 83 including matches against Connors and McEnroe. These weren't soft exhibitions but serious money events... The Suntory Open invitational in 1983 for instance had a prize pool of $250,000 for a four man field.... compare that to $66,000 for winning Wimbledon in the same year. Borg beat McEnroe in straight sets before losing a final to Connors. They were serious matches. I don't think Borg shirked the McEnroe challenge... he was burnt out.

 

[shawnbm]

I remember the file of one of those with exhibitions, which I think was called the Michelob open or Michelob invitational. Jimmy beat the Swede 6-4 in the fifth set. It was high quality all out tennis. Both players were still extremely capable. It was riveting stuff.

 

[britbox]

I remember the file of one of those with exhibitions, which I think was called the Michelob open or Michelob invitational. Jimmy beat the Swede 6-4 in the fifth set. It was high quality all out tennis. Both players were still extremely capable. It was riveting stuff.

Jimmy had a good record against Bjorn and a pretty good record overall in the money spinning invitationals.

 

[shawnbm]

Jimmy had a good record against Bjorn and a pretty good record overall in the money spinning invitationals.

Jimmy start off with a better record and had a better record all the way up until the early part of 1979. It is at that point the Borg took over the number one ranking and be Jimmy's like seven or eight times in a row.

 

[britbox]

Jimmy start off with a better record and had a better record all the way up until the early part of 1979. It is at that point the Borg took over the number one ranking and be Jimmy's like seven or eight times in a row.

True, but Jimbo regularly nailed him in the big money invitationals that don't get put on the official H2H lists... Quite the hustler, Jimbo.

 

[Federberg]

http://deadspin.com/roger-federer-i...d&utm_campaign=Feed:+deadspin/full+(Deadspin)

interesting stuff about how Roger his adapting

 

[isabelle]

http://deadspin.com/roger-federer-is-just-making-stuff-up-now-1792800886?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+deadspin/full+(Deadspin)

interesting stuff about how Roger his adapting

Donskoy didn't read this article for sure

 

[shawnbm]

Did not see the match, but it is quite shocking he had match points in the second set, lost it, and was up 5-1 in the third set tiebreak and lost 6 on the trot! That has got to be one of the most head-scratching losses in his storied career.