- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,162
- Reactions
- 5,845
- Points
- 113
Roger started the year strongly, defending his Australian Open title and then winning Rotterdam. He then won his first five matches at Indian Wells before losing to Juan Martin del Potro in a tight three set final.
In other words, Roger started the year by winning his first 17 matches. Since then? 19-6, a relatively pedestrian 75 win %.
After losing to del Potro he went on to lose to #175 Thanasi Kokkinakis in his first match of Miami Masters, then hung up his racket for the clay season.
He came back in June to win Stuttgart, including wins against Nick Kyrgios and Milos Raonic. He was in his element, but something seemed off. He looked like he was cruising to another Halle title before stumbling and losing to a hot Borna Coric in the final.
And then Wimbledon happened. He coasted through the first four matches, not losing a set, before losing to #8 Kevin Anderson in a five-setter. It was at that point that the questions increased in perfidy from a quiet murmur to a louder discussion. He was shaky in Cincinnati but made the final, losing to a surging Novak Djokovic. Still hard to say for sure, but the concerns had not been assuaged.
Finally we come to the US Open, where he looked shaky but played well enough to win his first three matches. And then John Millman happened, with Roger losing to the #55 player in the 4th round. Disaster struck.
The tone on this message board is, to capture it in a simple and short phrase, "Roger is done." Not as a title winner, maybe not even as a Masters winner, but as a majors winner. One poster even said "100% chance Roger doesn't win another major." Even most of his ardent fans agree.
But is that true? Are we jumping the gun? Sure, Roger is 37 and has played poorly, at least after Indian Wells (no shame in losing to del Potro in a tight three setter). 17-0 to start the year isn't bad at all.
But what has happened to him since? Has Father Time finally caught up to him?
If January 2017 to January 2018 hadn't happened, I'd say absolutely, time to face the inevitable. But this is Roger Federer, the guy who won the Australian Open after not playing professional tennis for over five months (other than the Hopman Cup). At age 35!
Certainly there is cause for serious concern. His first serve percentage has been terrible and while his return improved, it still looks off. He seems listless, not going for balls that he normally would jump at. His forehand and backhand are OK, but just that: OK. He is moving decently, but without that gazelle-like spring that made him seem so ageless.
The big question is: Can he find that new lease on life that he discovered before the 2017 Australian Open, when he surprised even (perhaps even most of all) himself?
This version of Roger Federer will win more titles, or at least the two he needs to reach 100. But he probably won't win the 12 more he needs to pass Jimmy Connors, and he certainly won't win any more Grand Slams.
Sometimes the end comes fast. I had a cat growing up that was young and wild until she was 18 years old. Then one day we found her huddled up like an old woman wearing woolen shawl. She died a few weeks later - no disease, just age catching up in a hurry. 18 years of youth, a month of old age.
I hope that isn't the case with Roger. We might not know for a few months, as he struggles to regain his form during the last couple months of the year. We might not know until he's been able to rest for a couple months and comes back fresh in January. But I suspect we'll know by the 2019 Australian Open. An in-form Roger might still lose to a six-year younger Djokovic, but an in-form Roger won't lose to Millman or Anderson or anyone other than an in-form Novak (or maybe Rafa).
For now I'm leaving the question unanswered, but I think we'll have our answer come January.
In other words, Roger started the year by winning his first 17 matches. Since then? 19-6, a relatively pedestrian 75 win %.
After losing to del Potro he went on to lose to #175 Thanasi Kokkinakis in his first match of Miami Masters, then hung up his racket for the clay season.
He came back in June to win Stuttgart, including wins against Nick Kyrgios and Milos Raonic. He was in his element, but something seemed off. He looked like he was cruising to another Halle title before stumbling and losing to a hot Borna Coric in the final.
And then Wimbledon happened. He coasted through the first four matches, not losing a set, before losing to #8 Kevin Anderson in a five-setter. It was at that point that the questions increased in perfidy from a quiet murmur to a louder discussion. He was shaky in Cincinnati but made the final, losing to a surging Novak Djokovic. Still hard to say for sure, but the concerns had not been assuaged.
Finally we come to the US Open, where he looked shaky but played well enough to win his first three matches. And then John Millman happened, with Roger losing to the #55 player in the 4th round. Disaster struck.
The tone on this message board is, to capture it in a simple and short phrase, "Roger is done." Not as a title winner, maybe not even as a Masters winner, but as a majors winner. One poster even said "100% chance Roger doesn't win another major." Even most of his ardent fans agree.
But is that true? Are we jumping the gun? Sure, Roger is 37 and has played poorly, at least after Indian Wells (no shame in losing to del Potro in a tight three setter). 17-0 to start the year isn't bad at all.
But what has happened to him since? Has Father Time finally caught up to him?
If January 2017 to January 2018 hadn't happened, I'd say absolutely, time to face the inevitable. But this is Roger Federer, the guy who won the Australian Open after not playing professional tennis for over five months (other than the Hopman Cup). At age 35!
Certainly there is cause for serious concern. His first serve percentage has been terrible and while his return improved, it still looks off. He seems listless, not going for balls that he normally would jump at. His forehand and backhand are OK, but just that: OK. He is moving decently, but without that gazelle-like spring that made him seem so ageless.
The big question is: Can he find that new lease on life that he discovered before the 2017 Australian Open, when he surprised even (perhaps even most of all) himself?
This version of Roger Federer will win more titles, or at least the two he needs to reach 100. But he probably won't win the 12 more he needs to pass Jimmy Connors, and he certainly won't win any more Grand Slams.
Sometimes the end comes fast. I had a cat growing up that was young and wild until she was 18 years old. Then one day we found her huddled up like an old woman wearing woolen shawl. She died a few weeks later - no disease, just age catching up in a hurry. 18 years of youth, a month of old age.
I hope that isn't the case with Roger. We might not know for a few months, as he struggles to regain his form during the last couple months of the year. We might not know until he's been able to rest for a couple months and comes back fresh in January. But I suspect we'll know by the 2019 Australian Open. An in-form Roger might still lose to a six-year younger Djokovic, but an in-form Roger won't lose to Millman or Anderson or anyone other than an in-form Novak (or maybe Rafa).
For now I'm leaving the question unanswered, but I think we'll have our answer come January.
