Monte Carlo Rolex Masters

[Kieran]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

Well aware, I was just pointing out that Roger should still be superior to Murray for the foreseeable future. First he should start by getting back to #2, I've seen him behind the likes of Murray for far too long.

Brother, the inevitable is that every player eventually slides down the rankings and they start to look like their own father out there. So would you prefer Roger to retire, or battle vainly on? He's never going to be #1 again, so if he got back to #2, would you want him to cash in his chips? Or you wouldn't mind to watch him go back down?

 

[Front242]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

Well aware, I was just pointing out that Roger should still be superior to Murray for the foreseeable future. First he should start by getting back to #2, I've seen him behind the likes of Murray for far too long.

Brother, the inevitable is that every player eventually slides down the rankings and they start to look like their own father out there. So would you prefer Roger to retire, or battle vainly on? He's never going to be #1 again, so if he got back to #2, would you want him to cash in his chips? Or you wouldn't mind to watch him go back down?

If it wasn't for this injury setback he'd still be number 2. He has a lot of points to defend this year with 2 slam finals but in terms of level of play he's still clearly a better player than Murray. Getting back ahead of Murray should hardly be a goal. Never dropping below Murray should've have been one though

 

[kro2488]

I was noticing when he was stretched out he let more balls go this tournament. I imagine its a combination of Federer just getting back and being slightly slower and also trying not to re-injure himself. He was still playing pretty good for just under going surgery and for his age. I wouldn't have come back so quick and would have waited longer, but look at how good of shape the maestro is in, it's crazy. I would like to see him win one more grand slam, but at this stage of his career it will be tougher than ever before.

 

[DarthFed]

A nitpick: Roger is not 36. He's 34, turns 35 in August.

Well aware, I was just pointing out that Roger should still be superior to Murray for the foreseeable future. First he should start by getting back to #2, I've seen him behind the likes of Murray for far too long.

Brother, the inevitable is that every player eventually slides down the rankings and they start to look like their own father out there. So would you prefer Roger to retire, or battle vainly on? He's never going to be #1 again, so if he got back to #2, would you want him to cash in his chips? Or you wouldn't mind to watch him go back down?

I'd take him winning a slam over anything including getting back to #1. So if he slides down the ranks and pulls a Sampras I'd be fine with that. I can't picture him staying long if he falls out of the top 10, it's a pride thing. He still enjoys the game obviously but it helps that he still plays at a reasonably high level

From a level standpoint as Front pointed out I see no reason he shouldn't be a solid #2. Roger had a bad start to last year up through RG and didn't have the best Fall. This kept him from getting #2 instead of a very underwhelming Murray. Obviously the injury this year hurt, he'd be #2 already and possibly by a decent margin.

 

[El Dude]

Here's an interesting stat: 2015 was the 12th year that Roger finished a year in the top 3. Only Jimmy Connors has had twelve top 3 finishes, so if Roger finished in the top 3 this year, he'll be the only player in the Open Era with 13+ top 3 years. Not bad.

Players with 2+ Top 3 Finishes (1973-2015)
12 Connors, Federer
9 Lendl, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic
8 Borg
7 McEnroe
6 Agassi
5 Becker, Edberg
4 Wilander
3 Vilas, Courier, Hewitt, Roddick
2 Newcombe, Nastase, Chang, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Safin, Murray