Federer out for the rest of 2016

[ClayDeath]

"The doctors advised that if I want to play on the ATP World Tour injury free for another few years, as I intend to do, I must give both my knee and body the proper time to fully recover."

Interesting that Fed talks as if he wants to play for a few more years and retirement is not in his thinking.

Injuries often have a way of making that decision on your behalf... I really can't see Fed playing for a "few more" years... at least at the highest level. He might get a couple more competitive years if he remains injury free and will always be relevant... but I think his major winning days are already behind him.

I expect roger to compete on the tour until he is 40-43.

grand slam events do become a little more difficult but the valiant and the brave never quit.

failure exists only in no longer trying.

 

[ClayDeath]

This is definitely a possibility, that his chances of coming back strong in 2017 are better if he rests. Overall, as tough as it is, this is probably the best move he can make. 2013 was kind of a similar scenario with having a bad back much of that year and not being competitive at the big events, and he ended up playing through that.

The one big concern is that his ranking will plummet, he will be lucky to finish in the top 15 and even then that means he can face one of the elite players in R16 at the big events.

it is a tough break for him. back issues and this knee issue have set him back.

I think roger is determined to get back into the swing of things. he has been already talking about 2017.


he will come back strong.

 

[britbox]

Roger's major winning days are behind him IMO but it would still be good to see him on tour in 2017. I think he's still capable of winning masters titles and going deep in majors but father time waits for nobody.

 

[Moxie]

With the dog days of summer approaching, you have to admit it's fun to have Mastoor back. We have the GOAT debate, Fed's relative sprightliness at 34 and a silent ban all in one brief post. We could probably run with that for weeks.

 

[Ricardo]

you gotta thank whom for reeling him back in....

silent ban yeah did Fed go in that egg thing which Novak made his trademark for when his fitness suddenly took a surge in a matter of week? apparently Fed is serving his silent sentence for using something that's supposed to be exclusively Nole's thing, now it all makes sense

 

[isabelle]

I expect roger to compete on the tour until he is 40-43.

grand slam events do become a little more difficult but the valiant and the brave never quit.

failure exists only in no longer trying.

till 40/43 ?? you want him to play challengers like Shuettler or Vilas ?? it's not a decent end of career
it's better to stop earlier

 

[DarthFed]

Not only that i said that, but Federer said that too, so no matter how hard it is to accept it, it is true. And what do you mean "he did next to nothing"?

Federer played some great slam finals against the best player ever and ended up second best. He also beat the GOAT several times in lower than slam tournaments.

Now Federer may be injured or on a silent ban as some people suggest which doesn't deny his special game last year and also this year at AO.

What do you expect him to say? That he's way past his best and is happy just to win a few 500 level tournaments?

He played one decent slam final in 2014 against Nole at a tournament where Novak just lost to a scrub. The 2 finals last year were beyond ugly. So yes, just making a slam final for Roger is "next to nothing". Trust me, he doesn't play to just go deep at occasional majors. Even with the odds against him I still believe Roger thinks he can get it done at a slam, particularly Wimbledon. Roger hasn't had a good season since 2012 and chances are high he will not have a good one again, it's just the way it is at his age. If he played so great last year he would have finished a few thousand points ahead of Murray...a player who also did next to nothing last year.

 

[Moxie]

What do you expect him to say? That he's way past his best and is happy just to win a few 500 level tournaments?

He played one decent slam final in 2014 against Nole at a tournament where Novak just lost to a scrub. The 2 finals last year were beyond ugly. So yes, just making a slam final for Roger is "next to nothing". Trust me, he doesn't play to just go deep at occasional majors. Even with the odds against him I still believe Roger thinks he can get it done at a slam, particularly Wimbledon. Roger hasn't had a good season since 2012 and chances are high he will not have a good one again, it's just the way it is at his age. If he played so great last year he would have finished a few thousand points ahead of Murray...a player who also did next to nothing last year.

When you call Roger's recent accomplishments "next to nothing," it can cause others to debate that. Most of us know what standards you hold Fed to, and that Roger holds himself to, most likely, so we can take your point. It's rather clear that Mastoor wants Roger to be fully strong so that it doesn't detract from Novak's Major accomplishments. Personally, I don't think it really should. But it is ridiculous to insist that a guy who hit his prime/peak starting in 2004 would still be at that level 12 years later. To say that Federer is not at his old level doesn't mean that Djokovic is not playing at a very high level. Sheesh.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Yes, I understand others think Roger going 6-1 on grass and fast hard courts at age 34 is some incredible achievement but I'm not one of them. As it stood the only thing of note he won last year was Cincy. Two decent slam runs and two early slam losses and he finished #3. I'm not sure why people would've expected worse. He probably would've finished #3 this year too if he hadn't been dealing with a bunch of injuries.

 

[Moxie]

What it means is that he's still a major factor in the game. I know you don't like if he just plays spoiler, but if he comes back next year and can still make the late rounds of big events, there's always a shot.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Agreed. The point I'm making is it shouldn't come as a surprise that Roger can still be competitive at age 34, I'd be more surprised if he wasn't (aside from when he is injured). But he hasn't won a slam in 4 years and for the most part he has rarely been close. The decline has been big which isn't unusual for his age.

 

[Moxie]

^ Agreed. The point I'm making is it shouldn't come as a surprise that Roger can still be competitive at age 34, I'd be more surprised if he wasn't (aside from when he is injured). But he hasn't won a slam in 4 years and for the most part he has rarely been close. The decline has been big which isn't unusual for his age.

The general arc of Roger's career has been a pretty consistent one. Not too steep up, very high at it's peak, and a gentle decline down. 2013 was a dip, and this year the injury gods have not been kind. So the dip this year will be bigger. We'll see how next year goes.

 

[Mastoor]

Silent ban...

True, who'd dare to silent ban him who is larger than the sport of tennis.

 

[Mastoor]

What do you expect him to say? That he's way past his best and is happy just to win a few 500 level tournaments?

He played one decent slam final in 2014 against Nole at a tournament where Novak just lost to a scrub. The 2 finals last year were beyond ugly. So yes, just making a slam final for Roger is "next to nothing". Trust me, he doesn't play to just go deep at occasional majors. Even with the odds against him I still believe Roger thinks he can get it done at a slam, particularly Wimbledon. Roger hasn't had a good season since 2012 and chances are high he will not have a good one again, it's just the way it is at his age. If he played so great last year he would have finished a few thousand points ahead of Murray...a player who also did next to nothing last year.

Your posts look like 2003 to 2007 period repeated several times and the era also happened recently, not almost 10 years ago.

You are obviously not fully aware that in last 9 years Federer won "only" 5 slams and in last 7 years "only" 2 and in last 4 years none.

How can anyone skew his 2003 to 2007 accomplishments to his entire career.

Are you aware that in 2003 to 2007 period Federer wasn't old and he largely didn't have rivals who could compare to Nadal and Djokovic who are both among best 3 players ever. I don't think that losing finals to them is less accomplishment than array of wins against Philipouses, Hewits, Safins, Rodicks, Bagdatises and alike.

 

[DarthFed]

Your posts look like 2003 to 2007 period repeated several times and the era also happened recently, not almost 10 years ago.

You are obviously not fully aware that in last 9 years Federer won "only" 5 slams and in last 7 years "only" 2 and in last 4 years none.

How can anyone skew his 2003 to 2007 accomplishments to his entire career.

Are you aware that in 2003 to 2007 period Federer wasn't old and he largely didn't have rivals who could compare to Nadal and Djokovic who are both among best 3 players ever. I don't think that losing finals to them is less accomplishment than array of wins against Philipouses, Hewits, Safins, Rodicks, Bagdatises and alike.

Not to be rude but I could barely understand the first few sentences. I'm fully aware that Roger hasn't won in the last 4 years and only has 1 slam since AO 2010.

It isn't even about Nole and Rafa, it'd be one thing if Roger consistently made GS finals and was only losing to one of them. But we are talking about the 34 year old version that just lost to Milos frickin Raonic at Wimbledon, and in the past 6 years he has lost at slams to Soderling, Berdych 2X, Tsonga 2X, Seppi, Cilic, Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Wawrinka, Murray, etc. Guys he literally would have never lost to at slams when he was at his best. And the last sentence is just dumb...LOSING to someone is always worse than WINNING regardless of the level of opponent. Losing is another word for embarrassing yourself, no such thing as a decent loss, not in this world.

 

[teddytennisfan]

I expect roger to compete on the tour until he is 40-43.

grand slam events do become a little more difficult but the valiant and the brave never quit.

failure exists only in no longer trying.

while i was never the ''biggest fan" of roger -- owing to MY personal bias which is not really nice of me -- i NEVER would allow that to stop me from recognizing his greatness - and the amazing accomplishment he has gotten.

just incredible player and champion really.
i hope he gets back close to what he used to be - and even if not -- tennis can never be as glorious with his absence ....now or when he eventually retires.

 

[Ricardo]

while i was never the ''biggest fan" of roger -- owing to MY personal bias which is not really nice of me -- i NEVER would allow that to stop me from recognizing his greatness - and the amazing accomplishment he has gotten.

just incredible player and champion really.
i hope he gets back close to what he used to be - and even if not -- tennis can never be as glorious with his absence ....now or when he eventually retires.

haha i remember your days as Sampras_Graf, and your claim back then that Fed is just a good player.....not even great. Its good see you admitting that it was indeed personal bias, which is a lot better than those prejudiced ones who insist that they speak 'objectively'.

 

[teddytennisfan]

haha i remember your days as Sampras_Graf, and your claim back then that Fed is just a good player.....not even great. Its good see you admitting that it was indeed personal bias, which is a lot better than those prejudiced ones who insist that they speak 'objectively'.

no -- you got the wrong summary.

i didn't like the way (and still don't) roger racked up titles while 'glorified" by his fans as if he was winning them against such amaing competition - such as by the likes of ljubicic (remember i used to deride ljubi for calling himself "i am the second best player in the world -- next to roger , my friend") at a time when the great ones like pete and andre were waaaaay over the hill - and nadal was barely competent to really win big on ''other than clay" ...

that's worth about 10 majors.

but i NEVER disagreed that roger as an athlete and superb tennis player was correct assessment.

- but you are CORRECT in assessing that MY APPRECIATION for him HAS grown over the years -- despite my bias (and my bias of course is like any STUPID bias -- that tendency to hang on to your ''old favs" which i still do with mine _and years from now i'll do the same with , for example , MY baby Serena...hehe -- lke roge'rs fans would with him or nadal with his (ME INCLUDED on nadal)-

but i also PROMISED some roger fans long ag0 - online -- somewhere else in other -- now probably defunct websites -- that no matter how HARSH i was towards roger -- with them --

the "DAY WILL come when fans of another upcoming generation will LOOK at roger's own career even worse -- but *I* , if i am around, WILL defend roger, just like the way i defended pete when roger's fans were putting pete down".

and I am keeping that promise.

 

[teddytennisfan]

haha i remember your days as Sampras_Graf, and your claim back then that Fed is just a good player.....not even great. Its good see you admitting that it was indeed personal bias, which is a lot better than those prejudiced ones who insist that they speak 'objectively'.

these past few years actuallyu -- as roger 'declines' (what a beautiful decline, though, lol) -
i have this friend - we both love tennis -- and SHE that i used to annoy by provoking her when roger would have a hard time (just being nasty, me, lol)
would say "i don't want to watch tennis anymore -- i can't bear seeing my roger lose"

i'd force her and nag her to watch an upcoming match of his..because I told her ?that's how i did with pete -- and even in his losses -- i don't regret saying ''farewell" to him by following him ALL THE WAY THROUGH - and see how great he was EVEN against the young guns like roger or hewitt and safin...when he was beginning to be past his prime...

the same way with your roger -- you HAVE to watch him all the way through..and if you love the BEAUTY of his game -- you have to love the way that beauty AGES...that's the way to be a LOYAL fan of a player you love. "

and THAT'S one of my reasons in ''praising roger" -- so his fans - WIN OR LOSE -- EVEN IF ROGER Falls flat on his face, like he did in WIMBLEDON recently -- will support him -- all the way through -- the PAIN of watching him FALL is the PRICE THEY PAY , in reality, for ALL the glory and beauty of his game that he GAVE them. and THAT , IMO, is the way to

tell oneself "i was a real fan of such and such player".

tha'ts what i am trying to do.

 

[teddytennisfan]

^ Agreed. The point I'm making is it shouldn't come as a surprise that Roger can still be competitive at age 34, I'd be more surprised if he wasn't (aside from when he is injured). But he hasn't won a slam in 4 years and for the most part he has rarely been close. The decline has been big which isn't unusual for his age.

this is a fine observation ...
as also a long-time fan of tennis -- and player s-- and my idol was and remains sampras...

i have similar experience with perhaps many here about players -- ''our fans' - their heights, their challenges , their decline, etc. etc. etc..

but i also have this attitude -- no one has to share it -- that ONCE we 'pick' our player from the beginning and are not just ''sunny day" fans -- separating the athlete generally from whatever their private life is like or despite that life or because of it
then, as fans of tennis, we should be able to appreciate the player AS MUCH in their decline as from their rise and the heights of their career's most productive years.

i think, as twisted says -- it's all a natural part of the whole thing, it's like life, after all.

we get born -- we grow up and take first clumsy steps, etc..we reach a certain period of greatest productivity if life allows, then we begin to lose more and more of our best abilities along with even lesser abilities..and then we die..

same as a career .

but throughout -- rise to height to fall - it is all ONE career. we can not - like the player -- pick and choose ..and detach one phase from the others.

what is AMAZING , truly, with roger is - while we all know that ''preservation" of players' abilities has advanced with the help of more knowledgeable ways of training, rest, etc...

maybe even the fact that players have an easier time nowadays to have good nutrition, enhancing their abilities, teams and teams of specialists around them -

and big support groups- adviser, blah, blah, blah -- compared to, say the days of PANCHO GONZALES -

BUT EVEN in this atmosphere - FEW if ANY would have sustained such a TOP LEVEL competitiveness the way Roger Federer has -- and just about everytime -- that fluid way of his in playing just shines even when he is in his declining years.

THAT'S amazing, imo. and roger deserves EVERY SINGLE outing that he thinks he wants to do -- win or lose -- whether he humiliates himself in a loss or wins another major..

that's PART of his career and his decision -- and

i remember the years when my fav pete was not winning anything just before his last major - and players, commentators and fans were puttinghim down ..

and ANDRE AGASSI -- his great rival who had EVERY reason to resent pete as a ''better athlete" (which andre also admitted he was 'annoyed' that pete was like tht) --

and andre was STILL doing better than pete was doing against the younger players --

ANDRE came to pete's defense and said:

"yea -- pete isn't doing so well for a while now - and everyone's dismissive of him -- but his game still has a HIDDEN DANGER to it that it would be wise not to under-estimate him...but more than that -- IF pete wants to play and humiliate himself out there -- that IS a RIGHT that HE has earned...

"he has a right to go out on HIS own terms -- not anybody else's".

THAT'S the same with roger .

HE - no less than any -- has a RIGHT -- which he earned -- to 'go out on his own terms".