Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future

[Fiero425]

Its worth taking a look at his rest-of-year schedule, according to his website:

Shanghai (ATP 1000): Oct 7-13
Swiss Indoors (ATP 500): Oct 21-27
BNP Masters (ATP 1000): Oct 28-Nov 3

Presumably he'd play in the World Tour Finals Nov 4-11.

When I started writing this I was thinking that I could see him withdraw from Shanghai or Paris or both, but the more I think about it the more I feel he's likely to stay the course. Why? Mainly because I don't think he is willing to give up on the WTF. Withdrawing from Shanghai and Paris would essentially be giving up his top 8 seeding, and I just don't see Roger wanting to skip out on the WTF.

Secondly, he also wants those three tournaments to get acclimated to his racket.

After the WTF, he'll have two months until the Australian Open, or a bit less before the "warm-up" ATP 250s like Qatar. My guess is that he'll decide what to do based upon how he fairs the rest of the reason. Let us not forget that before his loss to Robredo, he was looking pretty good - from his loss to Rafa in the previous tournament through the 3R at the US Open. In other words, there was some positive movement forward from his poor summer. The Robredo loss was disappointing but I don't think its a season (or career) ender.

No one's a bigger Federer fan here, but time marches on! It's getting ugly out there! Roger can have his good days, but they're becoming fewer and far between unfortunately! I'll be rather sad when he leaves the scene, but sooner or later, we'll have to let him go! So many come up with scenerios that will sustain him, but it's becoming more fantasy than reality! His last great run got him a Wimbledon title and the #1 ranking for a time; that's it I think! He's struggling just to make it to the later rounds now! I believe Rafa promised to play the SWISS to put that final nail in his coffin! If he doesn't have a good run indoors before the WTF, will you begin to say the same; "it's time to go?" :huh: uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[shawnbm]

No, I can't predict what will come of him.

 

[atttomole]

My Prediction for the Great One is three more grand slam final appearances, losing one of the finals, for a total of 19 grand slam titles.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

My Prediction for the Great One is three more grand slam final appearances, losing one of the finals, for a total of 19 grand slam titles.

I can live with that...

 

[El Dude]

My Prediction for the Great One is three more grand slam final appearances, losing one of the finals, for a total of 19 grand slam titles.

I love your optimism but...I fear you're way off.

Consider the rate in which he's been appearing in Finals since his prime. He's appeared in only two Finals in the last 15 Slams, a rate of 1 Final per 7.5 Slams. If he stays at the same pace he'll need to play in 23 more Slams to get to 3 Finals, which would us to Wimbledon of 2019, when Roger would almost be 38!

 

[ClayDeath]

My Prediction for the Great One is three more grand slam final appearances, losing one of the finals, for a total of 19 grand slam titles.

I can live with that...

another slam for him is not likely.


it is what it is. nadal, Andy, and nole are still young and they are also trying to improve.



I can see a possible deep run at Wimbledon but that is about it.



why is he so reluctant to change the failing formula?

 

[Fiero425]

My Prediction for the Great One is three more grand slam final appearances, losing one of the finals, for a total of 19 grand slam titles.

I can live with that...

Another slam for him is not likely.


It is what it is; Nadal, Andy, and Nole are still young and they are also trying to improve.

I can see a possible deep run at Wimbledon, but that is about it.

Why is he so reluctant to change the failing formula?

What do you mean? Roger's been revising his schedule and training for quite a while now; hense his longevity! His only fault that I can see and tell people most definitively is his reasoning behind playing the French Open again and again! That made no sense to me; esp. these last several years! If he couldn't win it in his prime, how does he think he's going to fare as an old man? :huh: uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[tented]

What do you mean? Roger's been revising his schedule and training for quite a while now; hense his longevity! His only fault that I can see and tell people most definitively is his reasoning behind playing the French Open again and again! That made no sense to me; esp. these last several years! If he couldn't win it in his prime, how does he think he's going to fare as an old man? :huh: uzzled :nono :angel:

Looking at his numbers, 2009 could certainly be argued as being beyond his prime ('05-'07), yet that's the year he won it. You simply never know. The draw could open up again next year, and he could win it a second time. It's not outside the realm of possibilities.

If he goes again and loses, so what? That's happened all but once, anyway. If he goes again and wins it, then it would have been worth it.

 

[Fiero425]

What do you mean? Roger's been revising his schedule and training for quite a while now; hense his longevity! His only fault that I can see and tell people most definitively is his reasoning behind playing the French Open again and again! That made no sense to me; esp. these last several years! If he couldn't win it in his prime, how does he think he's going to fare as an old man? :huh: uzzled :nono :angel:

Looking at his numbers, 2009 could certainly be argued as being beyond his prime ('05-'07), yet that's the year he won it. You simply never know. The draw could open up again next year, and he could win it a second time. It's not outside the realm of possibilities.

If he goes again and loses, so what? That's happened all but once, anyway. If he goes again and wins it, then it would have been worth it.

The draw can open up all he wants, but I just can't see it on clay! You see how he fared in smaller clay court events last summer; it was embarrassing regardless if he was testing a new racket or not! He's slowing down and his shot selection isn't doing him any good either! I've been saying for years, if he wants to win, he has to attack the net more and cut off some of those floating balls! He thinks he can sit back behind the baseline and rally with these kids and he lost to players I don't even know!

 

[atttomole]

My Prediction for the Great One is three more grand slam final appearances, losing one of the finals, for a total of 19 grand slam titles.

I can live with that...

another slam for him is not likely.


it is what it is. nadal, Andy, and nole are still young and they are also trying to improve.



I can see a possible deep run at Wimbledon but that is about it.



why is he so reluctant to change the failing formula?

I think it very possible. He can reduce the number of tournaments he plays, like what Nadal has done over the years, obviously for different reasons. And as we have seen, he can get a good draw where he has to meet only one or two of the top players to win a slam. In this US Open, Murray is out, DP is out, and Djokovic only has to face Nadal, even though we expected him to face Murray/DP or Berdych to reach the final. Such scenarios could play out again and Roger would pounce. I hope that he can get used to the bigger racket which can help his game.

 

[ClayDeath]

you have to keep adapting and evolving.


his game has a few holes in it now:


1. the return of serve is too weak

2. the backhand is not consistent enough

3. the serve lacks the sting and the movement that he used to have


4. he is not willing to dig in and grind. that is what wins matches today. you have engage them in a battle from the baseline.

run and gun/ultra high risk tennis is a failing strategy today.

 

[brokenshoelace]

4. he is not willing to dig in and grind. that is what wins matches today. you have engage them in a battle from the baseline.

...probably because he's over thirty, and cannot do that anymore.

 

[Tennis Miller]

4. he is not willing to dig in and grind. that is what wins matches today. you have engage them in a battle from the baseline.

...probably because he's over thirty, and cannot do that anymore.

^This
This is a guy who in his prime could go toe to toe with Nadal for 5 sets. He trained in the heat of Dubai, and could keep up the TMF level as long as needed.

Now, uuuuuhhh, not so much. We can get TMF for a few sets against the lesser guys. Not the top guys any more, and that's not going to change. Not with age, a dodgy back, twins, loss of the aura, and a whole host of guys willing to grind it out. Drops out of top ten this year and maybe makes a major semi.

 

[Tennis Miller]

4. he is not willing to dig in and grind. that is what wins matches today. you have engage them in a battle from the baseline.

...probably because he's over thirty, and cannot do that anymore.

^This
This is a guy who in his prime could go toe to toe with Nadal for 5 sets. He trained in the heat of Dubai, and could keep up the TMF level as long as needed.

Now, uuuuuhhh, not so much. We can get TMF for a few sets against the lesser guys. Not the top guys any more, and that's not going to change. Not with age, a dodgy back, twins, loss of the aura, and a whole host of guys willing to grind it out. Drops out of top ten next year and maybe makes a major semi.

Cheers

TM

 

[NADAL2005RG]

But Agassi was a better grinder over age 29 than under age 29. He was still grinding at age 35 and won THREE 5-setters at the 2005 US Open before losing to Federer in the final. And many would say Federer is more athletic than Agassi, and certainly a better mover. And even though Agassi had some lean years, he had a very hectic career as he was ranked #6 at age 17.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But Agassi was a better grinder over age 29 than under age 29. He was still grinding at age 35 and won THREE 5-setters at the 2005 US Open before losing to Federer in the final. And many would say Federer is more athletic than Agassi, and certainly a better mover. And even though Agassi had some lean years, he had a very hectic career as he was ranked #6 at age 17.

The answer lies in exactly what you stated. Federer relies on his athleticism and movement far more than Andre ever did, so losses in speed, stamina and footwork are huge blows to his game. Meanwhile Agassi just relied on standing his ground, hugging the baseline, and clean ballstriking. Plus Roger has so much mileage on him and has to compete with younget athletic freaks like Djokivic and Nadal who are baseline machines...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

But Agassi was a better grinder over age 29 than under age 29. He was still grinding at age 35 and won THREE 5-setters at the 2005 US Open before losing to Federer in the final. And many would say Federer is more athletic than Agassi, and certainly a better mover. And even though Agassi had some lean years, he had a very hectic career as he was ranked #6 at age 17.

Federer played almost the same amount of tennis till now at age 32 as Agassi by the time he retired at age 36 . That is basically four years worth of high end tennis squeezed into his career... Agassi had many breaks in his career. Mileage matters in tennis.

 

[ClayDeath]

But Agassi was a better grinder over age 29 than under age 29. He was still grinding at age 35 and won THREE 5-setters at the 2005 US Open before losing to Federer in the final. And many would say Federer is more athletic than Agassi, and certainly a better mover. And even though Agassi had some lean years, he had a very hectic career as he was ranked #6 at age 17.

The answer lies in exactly what you stated. Federer relies on his athleticism and movement far more than Andre ever did, so losses in speed, stamina and footwork are huge blows to his game. Meanwhile Agassi just relied on standing his ground, hugging the baseline, and clean ballstriking. Plus Roger has so much mileage on him and has to compete with younget athletic freaks like Djokivic and Nadal who are baseline machines...

you forget to make a note of the other obvious issue:


roger is armed with a primitive tool: his single handed backhand.



Agassi had no such limitations. it was consistent and it had finishing power.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

But Agassi was a better grinder over age 29 than under age 29. He was still grinding at age 35 and won THREE 5-setters at the 2005 US Open before losing to Federer in the final. And many would say Federer is more athletic than Agassi, and certainly a better mover. And even though Agassi had some lean years, he had a very hectic career as he was ranked #6 at age 17.

The answer lies in exactly what you stated. Federer relies on his athleticism and movement far more than Andre ever did, so losses in speed, stamina and footwork are huge blows to his game. Meanwhile Agassi just relied on standing his ground, hugging the baseline, and clean ballstriking. Plus Roger has so much mileage on him and has to compete with younget athletic freaks like Djokivic and Nadal who are baseline machines...

you forget to make a note of the other obvious issue:


roger is armed with a primitive tool: his single handed backhand.



Agassi had no such limitations. it was consistent and it had finishing power.

Boy, I wish I had a primitive limitation like that that could give me 17 slams...

 

[ClayDeath]

he was extremely lucky to get that #17. murray had not fully matured yet and lacked belief. nadal limped out early and nole was actually sick in that match. nole had worn himself out mentally and physically trying to chase RG.


other than that nobody with a single handed backhand is winning a slam. roger game was also too complete and he moved too well.



forget the old days. Sampras and roger also got a lot of mileage with their serves. roger held serve nearly 90% of the time in his prime. and he sure as hell did not hold it with his single hander.


it was a huge serve and still it is fairly big. he could move it around the box.


and the rest of his game was also pretty damn good so it masked his weakness which was the primitive tool (single handed backhand).



this game is very much like chess. a single weakness is all you need and somebody good enough can exploit it to death.


gasquet and wawrinka too have exceptional single handed backhands but they will never win a masters event, let alone a slam.