Is Roger Done?

[lacatch]

Not sure if anyone has heard about the severity of his injury from the Raonic match (which would affect the conversation), but as a longtime Roger fan I'm really thinking the chances of him winning another slam at this point are next to nil. The losses in the pre-Wimbledon tune-ups were understandable given his level of rust, but the performance against Raonic, combined with the face plant fall in the 5th set, just made Roger seem more his age. And it's not as if the other guys aren't competitive and hungry....... Australia and the French have been out of reach for a while, by next Wimbledon there will be Murray, Djokovic and others, and there are just better hard court players than him at the US Open. I wonder if he'll still hang around after this year if he wins no titles whatsoever, much less no majors. I know he's been injured since Australia (as he was throughout much of 2013 with a bad back), but at almost 35 recovering and reaching a level competitive with the other top players may be slipping out of reach.....

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

When the subject is Roger, it ain't over until he says so. I did not expect him to win against Cilic, but he came back from 0-2. He was very upset about the Milos loss in his presser. The guy just wants to keep on playing because he loves playing. HE thinks he can win the big tournaments, so...Me, I doubt it but he has been so close last couple of years.

 

[El Dude]

By "done" do you mean due to retire or no longer relevant at Slams? Perhaps the answer to both questions is the same, meaning once he determines that he's no longer relevant at Slams, he'll retire. But what is "relevant?" Even rusty he's more relevant than all but a very few, and certainly as relevant as the Berdychs and Tsongas of the world.

Let's take a step back for a moment. Yes, that fall was ugly and he lost to Raonic. But consider that, aside from the fact that Milos is playing the best of his career and looks top 5, he has been out for most of the year and still wasn't in prime condition. If he had been healthier, he probably would have beaten Raonic and would have stood a good chance against Murray. So I'm not going to call him no longer relevant. No longer a favorite? Well, that has been the case for four years now and it hasn't stopped him.

I think he'll play at least through 2017, maybe beyond if he's still making quarterfinals at Slams and in the top 10. He could also play a much abbreviated schedule for a few more years, maybe enough to maintain top half seeding at Slams (top 16), give himself another dozen chances at Slams. So maybe he retires at the end of 2017, perhaps Basel being his last tournament, but I could also see him hang around for a few more years.

Clearly winning another Slam is paramount in Roger's mind, but there are other reasons to keep playing: getting to 100 titles, for love of the game, etc.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes, Roger is done (with Wimbledon 2016).

p.s. Roger's agent announced that his knees are found to be fine after check up. See Fed's schedule thread for link.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It has been four years since Roger last won a slam. However, just because of that we cannot write him off. The important point is that he is still remaining a contender as evidenced by his finals appearance at 2014 W, 2015 W, 2015 USO which are not in the very distant past. Even this year, he reached SF of all the slams he played. That is not shabby.

I peered through history books and found out there is still hope for Roger. For example, Boris Becker won his penultimate slam at 1991 AO and then he won his last slam at 1996AO. During those five years he was finalist two times (both at Wimbledon, lost to Stich in 91 and Pete in 95). One small caveat is that Becker was just 29 when he won the last slam at 96 AO. But, I am focusing here on the gap between penultimate and last slam of players. The second highest such gap (among open era players with at least six slams) is that of Pete who had 2year and 3 months gap. He did make the finals twice at USO during the gap.

History also has several players who kept playing for a lot of years after their Slam. However, typically they were not relevant and did not quite remain as contenders (unlike Roger). Jimmy Connors played for 9 years after his last Slam, but reached only one final in those nine years. JMac played for 8 years after his last slam and reached only one final in those eight years. Wilander player for 8 years after last slam and he did not even reach a final during those 8 years. Lendl played for 4 years after his last slam and in those 4 years he reached only one final. So, as you can see Roger is doing better than all these people who played for several years in vein after last slam. So, the players who hung on in vein had reached only one or zero finals after their last slam. But, Roger has reached three finals.

So, I would not write off Roger. Having said that I would not bet on Roger winning another slam.
In other words, it is possible although not quite probable.

Also, Boris Becker example shows it could happen at the last place you expect as well. Becker's result at AO the previous four years were terrible (3rd, 1st, did not play, 1st). The conventional wisdom was that he will win at Wimbledon again if at all he does as his performance there for five years after his penultimate slam were great (F, QF, SF, SF, F), but he never won it again.

 

[El Dude]

Becker's last Slam is a good example of what sort of "perfect storm" Roger might need. Boris won that one partially because Sampras went out early (3R to Mark Philippoussis), and Agassi was beat by Michael Chang in the SF. Boris beat some solid opponents, but of top 10 players only had to face Kafelnikov (QF) and Chang (F).

I could still see Roger winning the USO, although again he'd need to both be playing very well and also get helped by Novak being upset. He could beat anyone else if he's playing well.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Becker's last Slam is a good example of what sort of "perfect storm" Roger might need. Boris won that one partially because Sampras went out early (3R to Mark Philippoussis), and Agassi was beat by Michael Chang in the SF. Boris beat some solid opponents, but of top 10 players only had to face Kafelnikov (QF) and Chang (F).

It was not a "Cinderella" win either. Boris Becker was seeded #4 at that AO and hence is not out of the realm for him to win it.

 

[El Dude]

Boris was also much younger than Roger is now, 28 years, 2 months old compared to Roger's almost 35 years old. Of course 28 in 1996 was relatively older than it is now.

 

[isabelle]

he still can win some 250 or 500, maybe a MS but no more GS or single's gold medal IMO

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roger is done if he have to live up to the high standards set by someone like DarthFed( I mean no disrespect to this poster but we have battled over his expectations for years. )

 

[Kieran]

I think "possible, but not probable" is a good formulation. Same for Rafa. We seem to have reached that stage... :cover

 

[DarthFed]

Roger is done if he have to live up to the high standards set by someone like DarthFed( I mean no disrespect to this poster but we have battled over his expectations for years. )

The point of this thread and ones like it is to discuss if he is done winning slams. I don't think it'd be a surprise at all to see Roger win another MS event or even up to a few more but I think his chances at slams are now very slim.

But if we expand it to such questions as "Is Roger done being a top player" or "Is Roger done winning any tournaments" then the answer is probably no assuming he plays beyond the end of this season.

 

[lob]

But why? His choice, but he is unnecessarily hauling himself on the tour. He can make more money by retiring now. That whole love of the sport thing is true as long as you can win. He owes that much to his family. At the very least, he should play just enough to stay top 10. That way he can stay fresh if wants to make a serious push at a slam. In fact, if he had taken a break in 2013, he might have won another by now.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[El Dude]

But why? His choice, but he is unnecessarily hauling himself on the tour. He can make more money by retiring now. That whole love of the sport thing is true as long as you can win. He owes that much to his family. At the very least, he should play just enough to stay top 10. That way he can stay fresh if wants to make a serious push at a slam. In fact, if he had taken a break in 2013, he might have won another by now.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

Sorry, but I just disagree with this perspective. Tennis isn't only about winning Slams just as life isn't only about the very best moments. Sure, that's the pinnacle, but Roger obviously loves the game itself. And he can still win, if you include all tournaments. He missed a lot of time this year so hasn't won anything, but he won six titles last year, including a Masters.

 

[El Dude]

A bit more. I'd assign several phases to Roger's career:

1. Development: 1998 to late 2003. His rise up to elite status, being a "young gun."
2. Peak: Late 2003 through 2007. The uncontested best player in the sport (12 Slams).
3. Plateau: 2008 to end of 2012. A step down from his very best, but still among the three best in the sport, and still a serious Slam contender (he won five Slams during this phase).
4. Late Career: 2013 - present. Another step down, but still elite, and still a contender at most big tournaments, darkhorse at Slams.

Roger is only "done" if you compare him to his peak or plateau phases.

 

[lob]

A bit more. I'd assign several phases to Roger's career:

1. Development: 1998 to late 2003. His rise up to elite status, being a "young gun."
2. Peak: Late 2003 through 2007. The uncontested best player in the sport (12 Slams).
3. Plateau: 2008 to end of 2012. A step down from his very best, but still among the three best in the sport, and still a serious Slam contender (he won five Slams during this phase).
4. Late Career: 2013 - present. Another step down, but still elite, and still a contender at most big tournaments, darkhorse at Slams.

Roger is only "done" if you compare him to his peak or plateau phases.

A near perfect breakup. I'll name them: Ascent, Summit, Plateau, Descent.

The Plateau Federer could still occasionally do jaw dropping stuff when the sirens went off e.g. 2012 W final running backhand drop volley to snatch set 2, the lob to the backhand of Roddick in 2009 W final 2nd set tiebreak 2-5, 2008 W final backhand return in the 4th set MP.

 

[Garro]

A bit more. I'd assign several phases to Roger's career:

1. Development: 1998 to late 2003. His rise up to elite status, being a "young gun."
2. Peak: Late 2003 through 2007. The uncontested best player in the sport (12 Slams).
3. Plateau: 2008 to end of 2012. A step down from his very best, but still among the three best in the sport, and still a serious Slam contender (he won five Slams during this phase).
4. Late Career: 2013 - present. Another step down, but still elite, and still a contender at most big tournaments, darkhorse at Slams.

Roger is only "done" if you compare him to his peak or plateau phases.

Good analysis. One thing I would add though, 2010 was basically the end of an era for Roger in terms of the slams. After the Australian open that year, his level dropped and you could no longer rely on him to make every grand slam final. For that reason, I see 2008-09 as a distinct phase where his consistency as a whole had declined, but he was still easily the first or second favorite at every slam.

 

[El Dude]

A bit more. I'd assign several phases to Roger's career:

1. Development: 1998 to late 2003. His rise up to elite status, being a "young gun."
2. Peak: Late 2003 through 2007. The uncontested best player in the sport (12 Slams).
3. Plateau: 2008 to end of 2012. A step down from his very best, but still among the three best in the sport, and still a serious Slam contender (he won five Slams during this phase).
4. Late Career: 2013 - present. Another step down, but still elite, and still a contender at most big tournaments, darkhorse at Slams.

Roger is only "done" if you compare him to his peak or plateau phases.

Good analysis. One thing I would add though, 2010 was basically the end of an era for Roger in terms of the slams. After the Australian open that year, his level dropped and you could no longer rely on him to make every grand slam final. For that reason, I see 2008-09 as a distinct phase where his consistency as a whole had declined, but he was still easily the first or second favorite at every slam.

Yeah, I can agree with that. It goes along with the idea that Roger's peak phase could be seen to extend to the 2010 AO, because 2008 was still peak but marred by injury, illness and Rafa's rise, and while 2009 was a half step down from 2007, he was dominant.

But I used 2008-12 phase because the player I saw in 2012 was pretty close to the player he was in 2009. 2010-11 was a dip, but he seemed re-focused in 2012.

Ultimately all such phases are artificial, and it probably makes more sense to think in terms of year-to-year. We could also look at his career yearly in terms of how close to his very best form he was in a given year. Let's say 2006 was his very best, thus "100." Then we could say something like this:

1998: 50
1999: 60
2000: 70
2001: 75
2002: 80
2003: 90
2004: 97
2005: 97
2006: 100
2007: 95
2008: 90
2009: 93
2010: 90
2011: 90
2012: 92
2013: 80
2014: 85
2015: 85
2016: 82

Or something like that. Again, it is pretty abstract but maybe a bit more accurate.

 

[El Dude]

One other thing to consider about Roger being "done." He made it to the SF of the two Slams he's played so far. How many players have made it to two SFs or even just a single SF?

Two+ SF:
Djokovic (W, W)
Murray (W, F, F)
Federer (SF, SF)
Raonic (SF, F)

One SF:
Thiem (SF)
Wawrinka (SF)
Berdych (SF)

So even in an injury-marred year, Roger's Slam results have still been better than all but three players on tour: Novak, Andy, and Milos. I think we can forgive him for not thinking, "I'm done."

 

[lob]

El Dude, yes of course he is still a top player. What I cannot understand how his motivation works. For anyone else in his shoes it just won't be worth it. In any event, he always said that he will play until Rio 16. But if he really wants to stay on the tour for another year or two, he shoulder take at least 4 months off after uso. Maybe even 6. Who knows he might remember who he is? He is in a rut. Burnt out from 2 decades of tennis. The problem is not just his age. He needs his killer instincts.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk