Is this the beginning of The Incline?

[Fiero425]

Fiero, you imply that winning majors is what tennis is about. I see it more as the pinnacle of the sport, something akin to the dessert, but there's still a whole meal, still a lot of other things going on.

In other sports you have the regular season and then the playoffs. In baseball, the goal for every team is to win the World Series. But only one team does it, and it doesn't invalidate every other team or the entire season.

Winning majors is like like winning the World Series (or Superbowl, World Cup, etc). It is the pinnacle, but the game is still worth playing even if you're not going to win it. I have no doubt that Roger really wants to win another Slam, but I also have no doubt that he enjoys the sport.

That said, I don't think he'd play for long if he left the top 10. Maybe a year? Probably we'd see a year or two in the top 5-10 range, then one more partial year in the top 10-20 range. And if he felt like he simply had no chance at winning a major, that might be the time he'd hang up his racket. But we're not there yet.

By the end of a career, it is all about the majors! That's why Sampras felt fortunate to have his biggest pigeon at the USO in 2002 to go out on top as it were! Borg left early, Laver only hung on to acquire a WCT Final Championship, but his last chance was in '75 where Borg took him out in 5! When you're at the top, IMO it can only taint a legend's reputation and legacy if they continue to stay on tour just earning $$$; sorta like Connors who when almost 8-9 years just being a punchline on the tour! He wasn't even able to win small tourneys those last several years going out in finals to players not ranking in the top 50; sorta like Rafa for a while! :snicker :laydownlaughing

 

[El Dude]

When you talk about Jimmy Connors being a "punch-line," are you referring to his little "comeback" in the 90s? Because he was still winning titles and upsetting younger stars as late as 1989, which was also the year he slipped out of the top 10 for good. But I'd hardly call him a "punchline" then. He only played a bit in 1990, due to a wrist injury, I think, then had surgery and had his amazing SF run at the 1991 US Open, just shy of 39 years old. Hardly a punchline - just an old great with a bit of fire left in him.

I can only think you refer to 93-96, when he played 5, 3, 2, and 1 tournaments and ranked outside the top 300 and never won a title. But consider that in those last four years, he played 11 tournaments in total, less than a typical year. I didn't follow tennis closely, but I can only imagine that he did so for the heck of it, not as some delusional attempt to return to greatness.

Back to Roger, I really have no problem with him playing out his remaining years in any way he so desires. I'd love to see him play on for 5+ years, even if it is only half a dozen tournaments a year, and even if he's ranked outside of the top 100. I don't foresee it, but I'll cherish any Roger we can get.

My own prediction is that 2016 is the last year he is in the top 5, but that he'll play at least through 2017 and probably 2018. He'll be in the latter half of the top 10 and maybe slip out on occasion, playing a few less tournaments to preserve his body, but still remaining a dangerous player. He'll slip out of the top 10 for good either in late 2018 (at age 37) or sometime in 2019. I'd guess he'd play a limited schedule through 2019, and retire after Basel. Just a guess. It could be pushed back or forward a year. But again, if he wants to stick around until past his 40th birthday and just play a few tournaments, I'd be happy to see it. He's already written himself into the history books of one of the GOATs and can't tarnish that record.

 

[Fiero425]

When you talk about Jimmy Connors being a "punch-line," are you referring to his little "comeback" in the 90s? Because he was still winning titles and upsetting younger stars as late as 1989, which was also the year he slipped out of the top 10 for good. But I'd hardly call him a "punchline" then. He only played a bit in 1990, due to a wrist injury, I think, then had surgery and had his amazing SF run at the 1991 US Open, just shy of 39 years old. Hardly a punchline - just an old great with a bit of fire left in him.

I can only think you refer to 93-96, when he played 5, 3, 2, and 1 tournaments and ranked outside the top 300 and never won a title. But consider that in those last four years, he played 11 tournaments in total, less than a typical year. I didn't follow tennis closely, but I can only imagine that he did so for the heck of it, not as some delusional attempt to return to greatness.

Back to Roger, I really have no problem with him playing out his remaining years in any way he so desires. I'd love to see him play on for 5+ years, even if it is only half a dozen tournaments a year, and even if he's ranked outside of the top 100. I don't foresee it, but I'll cherish any Roger we can get.

My own prediction is that 2016 is the last year he is in the top 5, but that he'll play at least through 2017 and probably 2018. He'll be in the latter half of the top 10 and maybe slip out on occasion, playing a few less tournaments to preserve his body, but still remaining a dangerous player. He'll slip out of the top 10 for good either in late 2018 (at age 37) or sometime in 2019. I'd guess he'd play a limited schedule through 2019, and retire after Basel. Just a guess. It could be pushed back or forward a year. But again, if he wants to stick around until past his 40th birthday and just play a few tournaments, I'd be happy to see it. He's already written himself into the history books of one of the GOATs and can't tarnish that record.

Well that was a nice, lively debate and you all made the cut into my blog! Edited down, but something we can come back to in a few years! :cover :eyepop :lolz: :snicker :laydownlaughing

- http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/01/whats-up-topic-18-entries-116-on.html?showComment=1461035706957#c4944408276376842960 -

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That said, I don't think he'd play for long if he left the top 10. Maybe a year? Probably we'd see a year or two in the top 5-10 range, then one more partial year in the top 10-20 range. And if he felt like he simply had no chance at winning a major, that might be the time he'd hang up his racket. But we're not there yet.

You are mixing up two totally different idea. One is about rankings and another is about his personal assessment of his chances of being a contender. Roger has clearly said in one interview that he does not care much about rankings. In fact, he even cited Hewitt as his role model in this regard (i.e, continuing to play despite low rankings).

Roger is gradually cutting down his schedule (as he should considering his age). For example this year he will most probably play just 14 tournaments whereas 18 tournaments are allowed as countable tournaments. Next year, it will probably just 12. He has told explicitly that he will take this approach (i.e., sort of like phased retirement in regular jobs). When you play less, your ranking is bound to go down. He has said he won't be worried directly about the ranking.

However, he would quit if he feels he is not a contender (he currently is despite Fiero's complaints).

 

[the AntiPusher]

While I think Nadal looks like he is starting to gain some form of consistency and on a good day can take Novak out in a best of three scenario like Fed and Andy. I don't think at the slams in best of five anyone is ready to take Novak out at the moment.

I don't think at the slams in best of five anyone is ready to take Novak out at the moment.


Stan has been able to consistently battle Novak for 4 to 5 sets at RG , USO and several times at AO recently.( the last 3 years)

 

[El Dude]

That said, I don't think he'd play for long if he left the top 10. Maybe a year? Probably we'd see a year or two in the top 5-10 range, then one more partial year in the top 10-20 range. And if he felt like he simply had no chance at winning a major, that might be the time he'd hang up his racket. But we're not there yet.

You are mixing up two totally different idea. One is about rankings and another is about his personal assessment of his chances of being a contender. Roger has clearly said in one interview that he does not care much about rankings. In fact, he even cited Hewitt as his role model in this regard (i.e, continuing to play despite low rankings).

Roger is gradually cutting down his schedule (as he should considering his age). For example this year he will most probably play just 14 tournaments whereas 18 tournaments are allowed as countable tournaments. Next year, it will probably just 12. He has told explicitly that he will take this approach (i.e., sort of like phased retirement in regular jobs). When you play less, your ranking is bound to go down. He has said he won't be worried directly about the ranking.

However, he would quit if he feels he is not a contender (he currently is despite Fiero's complaints).

We're in a agreement. I see the rankings as symptomatic, not causative. So him leaving the top 10 wouldn't be the reason he'd soon call it quits, but because of what it would mean as far as his overall ability. Even with a pared-down schedule, if he truly is competitive he should be able to at least be in the vicinity of the top 10. I suppose I could see a year or two in the top 20, as he focused on the Slams. And yes, much of that fall in rankings would be due to less playing time, although some would also likely be due to worse performance.

Hewitt is an odd role model. I get what Roger means, but Hewitt hasn't been an elite player in a decade. I'm guessing he realized he no longer had a serious chance at winning a Slam, but was playing for other reasons.

 

[lob]

Winning majors is like like winning the World Series (or Superbowl, World Cup, etc). It is the pinnacle, but the game is still worth playing even if you're not going to win it. I have no doubt that Roger really wants to win another Slam, but I also have no doubt that he enjoys the sport.

Not sure about this. Suppose an oracle told Roger on the veranda of Lawn Tennis Club in 2012 as he was posing with champion's trophy "I know for a fact that you will not win even one of the next 14 majors and the other big 3 along with your fellow Swiss will share 13 of them. But no worries, you will stay # 2 or #3 most of that time if you maintain a full schedule. I can see no further than 14 slams.". He would seriously have considered taking 6 months off or even retirement. If Mirka overheard she would have made sure that he retires immediately.

Why would he want to work like a dog and put his family through the relentless travel for 3.5 years only to tarnish his legacy and destroy the mystique of King Federer both the player and the brand? Even money wise his brand might even have been more valuable now if he had retired in July 2012. Sure slams are not everything but as far as much of the world is concerned they are the only thing. He has been trying keep his biggest record alive by giving himself many opportunities. And there have been several even if you only count major SFs and Fs. But he has long lost the killer instinct on top of the age related decline.

 

[mrzz]

Not sure about this. Suppose an oracle told Roger on the veranda of Lawn Tennis Club in 2012 as he was posing with champion's trophy "I know for a fact that you will not win even one of the next 14 majors and the other big 3 along with your fellow Swiss will share 13 of them. But no worries, you will stay # 2 or #3 most of that time if you maintain a full schedule. I can see no further than 14 slams.". He would seriously have considered taking 6 months off or even retirement. If Mirka overheard she would have made sure that he retires immediately.

Why would he want to work like a dog and put his family through the relentless travel for 3.5 years only to tarnish his legacy and destroy the mystique of King Federer both the player and the brand? Even money wise his brand might even have been more valuable now if he had retired in July 2012. Sure slams are not everything but as far as much of the world is concerned they are the only thing. He has been trying keep his biggest record alive by giving himself many opportunities. And there have been several even if you only count major SFs and Fs. But he has long lost the killer instinct on top of the age related decline.

Problem is there are no oracles out there. It is obvious that anyone, knowing for a fact that he would not win a thing, would be less motivated. However, even if I understand the point you are trying to make, you're hypothetical example is simply against the spirit of competition: people do like difficult objectives, and they do enjoy the challenge. I guess that matured competitors know quite well the risk of falling short, and don't regret their choices. Federer seems far away from someone frustrated or regreting his choices...

 

[Carol]

Surprisingly Soderling has said.......wow

https://www.instagram.com/p/BESiH4oyARZ/

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Surprisingly Soderling has said.......wow

https://www.instagram.com/p/BESiH4oyARZ/

He missed a great opportunity to say, Roger and Rafa can win any title as long as they play considering I am now retired. :snicker

 

[10isfan]

Fed should have named one of his kids "Robin". The guy enabled him to win the one major that eluded him. He is a hero among Fed fans.

 

[isabelle]

Fed should have named one of his kids "Robin". The guy enabled him to win the one major that eluded him. He is a hero among Fed fans.

the arrogant old Swiss should thanks Robin for sure, without him no RG trophy in 2009...but he beat him in 2010 so not sure the Swiss fans love him...personally i'm a big Robin's fan I miss him a lot, not only for his tennis but also for his attitude

 

[Front242]

He has no one to thank given how well Soderling was playing and since he beat the guy who took out the defending champion. He had some extremely tough matches en route to that final. If you want to go down that bs route you can apply it anywhere anytime, eg Nadal should thank Berdych for beating Federer at Wimbledon 2010 so he only had to beat Berdych in the final but it's a silly tangent to go off on. Wawrinka should thank Djokovic for beating Nadal at RG last year, etc. Um, no. Totally stupid.

 

[Kieran]

Nadal should thank Berdych for beating Federer at Wimbledon 2010

:laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing :lolz:

 

[El Dude]

I agree with Soderling, although it doesn't have to be black or white. Rafa doesn't have to be "done" to not be the player he was in 2008-13, which he clearly isn't. It doesn't mean he can't win another Slam, or even two. Roger was his best self in 2012 but beat Novak and Andy en route to Wimbledon.

That said, I would be very surprised to Rafa win anything other than Roland Garros. MAYBE if he got hot at the AO or USO, and Novak was out.

 

[Carol]

Rafa in 2014 was playing excellent and was close to win his second AO, stupid back but maybe he still has a second opportunity, why[/align] not if he would be healthy?

 

[the AntiPusher]

For this to be a true "Incline for Rafa" this following statement is true

Yoda tells Luke(Rafa) his training is not complete because he has not passed the one essential test or "Trial" for a Padawan to become a Jedi Knight ... "One thing remains ... Vader(Djoker), you must confront Vader(Djoker) ... then, only then, a Jedi will you be."


You cannot become a Jedi Knight(Grand Slam Champion) unless you confront And Conquer your fears ...

Rafa MUST DEFEAT DJOKER at a SLAM again

 

[El Dude]

How about just defeating Novak, period.

 

[El Dude]

Rafa in 2014 was playing excellent and was close to win his second AO, stupid back but maybe he still has a second opportunity, why[/align] not if he would be healthy?

Here we go again.

Well, he's been healthy his last five Slams and hasn't made it past the QF, not past the 3R in the last three.

Again, Carol, this isn't just another Rafa injury and comeback. This isn't late 2012 to early 2013, or 2009, when he was able to comeback strong after a shorter time. This is two years of struggle for a player approaching 30, despite general health for the last year and a half.

That said, you should be encouraged that, at the least, he'll be competitive through clay season. After that, all bets are off.

 

[Carol]

Rafa in 2014 was playing excellent and was close to win his second AO, stupid back but maybe he still has a second opportunity, why[/align] not if he would be healthy?

Here we go again.

Well, he's been healthy his last five Slams and hasn't made it past the QF, not past the 3R in the last three.

Again, Carol, this isn't just another Rafa injury and comeback. This isn't late 2012 to early 2013, or 2009, when he was able to comeback strong after a shorter time. This is two years of struggle for a player approaching 30, despite general health for the last year and a half.

That said, you should be encouraged that, at the least, he'll be competitive through clay season. After that, all bets are off.

Two years ego he was 27 (one year younger than Novak is now) still far of 30. After that back injury he cameback physically healthy but not mentally which can be even worst than physically
If he does a good clay season we'll see how he will do later, we don't know how the others players will do neither or you know?