The Problem for Roger Federer

[Kieran]

Come on, drop it, Front, with the stupid innuendos. Federer's quite remarkable for his age, using his own doctors.

Nobody's footwork stays impeccable, and that's another thing goes with age, even if you've always been elven light, like Roger. I remember when Pete began to show signs of weariness - a lot younger than the seemingly ever-sprite Roger - I still held hopes at the majors that even if he lost in smaller events, that some day he'd assert himself, roll back time, the skill was still there, etc. It happened, but Pete was 31, 2 years younger than Roger is now - and then he quit.

In other words, Roger has given us a lot, but he's still hanging in there at a high level, and will most likely be one of the favourites in Flushing Meadows. I'm still not sure what you fellas want: that he should be winning majors? That flies in the face of anything we've ever seen in the sport - and please don't insult your own intelligence by sputtering, "uh yeah, but this is Roger we're talking about..."

 

[El Dude]

Front242, I hate to say it but I agree with Kieran here. Roger is playing great for a 33-year old--and I'd say a bit better than Sampras was at 31, with stiffer competition. The problem is that you're comparing him to Roger age 22-28, and he's just not the same player.

To re-cap, from 2004 to 2007, Roger's age 23-26 seasons, he was the best player in the world. In 2008-09, when he was 27-28, he shared the title with a young (22-23) Rafael Nadal. From 2010 to the present, Roger's age 29-33 seasons, he's been the overall third greatest player, behind a peak Nadal and Djokovic. There's nothing to be ashamed about being third fiddle to those two guys in their prime. But at this point we simply can't expect to see anything more than moments of his peak level.

Of course I still hold out hope that he can win another Slam, but I think he would require a lot of luck and some of that elven magic Kieran alludes to. Actually, I think his best bet at winning a big tournament is probably the World Tour Final. But even there it will be tough to beat Novak.

 

[Front242]

Front242, I hate to say it but I agree with Kieran here. Roger is playing great for a 33-year old--and I'd say a bit better than Sampras was at 31, with stiffer competition. The problem is that you're comparing him to Roger age 22-28, and he's just not the same player.

To re-cap, from 2004 to 2007, Roger's age 23-26 seasons, he was the best player in the world. In 2008-09, when he was 27-28, he shared the title with a young (22-23) Rafael Nadal. From 2010 to the present, Roger's age 29-33 seasons, he's been the overall third greatest player, behind a peak Nadal and Djokovic. There's nothing to be ashamed about being third fiddle to those two guys in their prime. But at this point we simply can't expect to see anything more than moments of his peak level.

Of course I still hold out hope that he can win another Slam, but I think he would require a lot of luck and some of that elven magic Kieran alludes to. Actually, I think his best bet at winning a big tournament is probably the World Tour Final. But even there it will be tough to beat Novak.

Even 2 years ago though he was winning a good portion of these finals so you don't need to go back to 22-28. At 31 he was still quite a beast in 2012. Now he does the hard work, makes the final and just loses badly. That scoreline last night made it look better than it was, on paper 7-5 7-6 was a close match but if he's going to lose, Roger should at least be winning a damn set against Tsonga! I personally don't see that as great and I know Darth and others don't either. He has to at least win a few of them and he hasn't won any of the big ones this year.

 

[Front242]

Come on, drop it, Front, with the stupid innuendos. Federer's quite remarkable for his age, using his own doctors.

Nobody's footwork stays impeccable, and that's another thing goes with age, even if you've always been elven light, like Roger. I remember when Pete began to show signs of weariness - a lot younger than the seemingly ever-sprite Roger - I still held hopes at the majors that even if he lost in smaller events, that some day he'd assert himself, roll back time, the skill was still there, etc. It happened, but Pete was 31, 2 years younger than Roger is now - and then he quit.

In other words, Roger has given us a lot, but he's still hanging in there at a high level, and will most likely be one of the favourites in Flushing Meadows. I'm still not sure what you fellas want: that he should be winning majors? That flies in the face of anything we've ever seen in the sport - and please don't insult your own intelligence by sputtering, "uh yeah, but this is Roger we're talking about..."

Majors, I could handle him making a final and losing better because that takes a lot more effort but he surely has it in him to beat Wawrinka or Tsonga in masters best of 3. Fact is he should've won at least one of those this year. So his play is probably very good rather than great. To be great he needs to win the final, not just get there. A few less errors and he'd have bagged one of those no problem.

 

[El Dude]

2012 was the best year of his "plateau," which is 2010 to the present. 2013 was his worst year; 2014 seems to be an evening out, more to the level of 2010-11, although without any big tournaments.

But I hear you about the disappointment at Finals. I'm not disappointed with his overall performance--which is as good as it has been in the last half decade or so--except at finals.

And to respond to Kieran (who I gave his 2000th "like" to), I think it is reasonable to want to see him win at least SOME of these finals he keeps finding himself in. Consider this: he's been in only one fewer big finals this year than Rafa or Novak. Rafa is 2-3, Novak 4-1, and Roger 0-4. That's a bit frustrating.

Still, I hope that he can win at least one of Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris, the US Open, or the World Tour Final. He's had a great year otherwise, but he needs to win AT LEAST one big tournament for it not to be a huge disappointment.

 

[Kieran]

How long are you watching tennis, Front?

Sampras - the one whose stage of career we most often compare Roger, with fans hoping that Roger will grab a slam like Pete did in 2002 (and Roger did in 2012) - was displaying signs of wear and tear in late 1998, and he skipped Oz in 1999 with exhaustion. He threw his racket down after his final major win and never played again - done with the sport, aged 31.

Roger has played 200 matches more than Pete and never once shown the same need for a rest, never skipping majors, etc. But inevitably, something has got to give. You can't expect that Federer "should" this or that (a favourite word for you and Darth) when he's playing highly skilled players who are in the top ten or twenty in the world. Apparently yesterday Tsonga served so well, he didn't even face a break point.

You's boys hate the weak competition argument - and you's both always make it, when you show such disdain for top ranking pros who are finally beating Federer, in his dotage...

 

[Front242]

2012 was the best year of his "plateau," which is 2010 to the present. 2013 was his worst year; 2014 seems to be an evening out, more to the level of 2010-11, although without any big tournaments.

But I hear you about the disappointment at Finals. I'm not disappointed with his overall performance--which is as good as it has been in the last half decade or so--except at finals.

And to respond to Kieran (who I have his 2000th "like" to), I think it is reasonable to want to see him win at least SOME of these finals he keeps finding himself in. Consider this: he's been in only one fewer big finals this year than Rafa or Novak. Rafa is 2-3, Novak 4-1, and Roger 0-4. That's a bit frustrating.

Still, I hope that he can win at least one of Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris, the US Open, or the World Tour Final. He's had a great year otherwise, but he needs to win AT LEAST one big tournament for it not to be a huge disappointment.

Great year relative to age, very good relative to not actually winning any of the titles worth a damn is how'd I'd break it down. The last line kind of agrees with what I'm saying though, how can it truly have been a great year if he doesn't at least win one big title, at this stage one of the remaining masters or the WTF (preferably both but can't be greedy) is desperately needed. Think of it this way, some may consider it a great year for him but you can bet he doesn't consider 0-4 in 4 big finals anywhere within even sniffing distance of great himself. Champions need to at least win 1 of those 4 to be considered great.

Yeah, when you break it down to the number of big finals he's been in relative to guys way younger it's pretty damn impressive but, again, for it to truly be a great year he certainly needs to win at least one of them.

 

[Front242]

How long are you watching tennis, Front?

Sampras - the one whose stage of career we most often compare Roger, with fans hoping that Roger will grab a slam like Pete did in 2002 (and Roger did in 2012) - was displaying signs of wear and tear in late 1998, and he skipped Oz in 1999 with exhaustion. He threw his racket down after his final major win and never played again - done with the sport, aged 31.

Roger has played 200 matches more than Pete and never once shown the same need for a rest, never skipping majors, etc. But inevitably, something has got to give. You can't expect that Federer "should" this or that (a favourite word for you and Darth) when he's playing highly skilled players who are in the top ten or twenty in the world. Apparently yesterday Tsonga served so well, he didn't even face a break point.

You's boys hate the weak competition argument - and you's both always make it, when you show such disdain for top ranking pros who are finally beating Federer, in his dotage...

Well, born in 1974 so I even remember watching Borg and obviously McEnroe, so long enough. Tsonga had 36% first serves in at one point in the first set. As I posted earlier, luckily for him he came up with the big serves and aces when needed but he's served a lot better in the past, eg, Wimbledon 2011 against Roger. That day he was amazing on serve for 3 whole sets. A lot better than yesterday. A few less errors and Roger could've won that match so that doesn't show that Tsonga beat him that handily really. Fact is it took a terrible performance full of errors from Roger and very good, but not at all spectacular, performance from Tsonga to win in 2 close sets.

 

[Kieran]

And to respond to Kieran (who I gave his 2000th "like" to), I think it is reasonable to want to see him win at least SOME of these finals he keeps finding himself in. Consider this: he's been in only one fewer big finals this year than Rafa or Novak. Rafa is 2-3, Novak 4-1, and Roger 0-4. That's a bit frustrating.

Much appreciated "like" that is too, not one of those fake ones like Sharapova keeps getting :snigger

Thing is, we all want our favourite to be solid and young, but it's not gonna happen. I think it's fairly remarkable that Roger is still playing so many matches at such a high level, after the career he's had. It's exceptional, actually. He's been top 8 since October 2002. It's unimaginable the toll this takes on a body, the levels of fitness required, he's never skipped a single major, he played through mono and bad backs, and never went below 8. Asking more from him is greedy, but he's not far off it either. Still, give the guy a break...

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, Kieran. The thing is, it would be less disappointing if he wasn't making finals, but the fact that he's made 4 big ones and hasn't come away with any trophies is what is irking. If he was fading more intensely like Pete did then we might be more like, "Oh well, Father Time finds us all." The fact that Roger is still playing so well is what keeps our hopes and expectations up!

But yeah - Roger's still got some spunk in him, amazingly so considering his age. I imagine that Rafa's and Novak's fans will be pleased as pie if they're #3 at age 33!

 

[Front242]

^ Good chance neither will play that long but who knows.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the other good thing about Federer still playing (apart from still be watching him) is he's beginning to challenge some of the longevity records like most years qualifying/playing world tour finals..most weeks in top10/top5, but he will have to play on to catch Connors on those records. etc etc.

 

[Moxie]

I hear you, Kieran. The thing is, it would be less disappointing if he wasn't making finals, but the fact that he's made 4 big ones and hasn't come away with any trophies is what is irking. If he was fading more intensely like Pete did then we might be more like, "Oh well, Father Time finds us all." The fact that Roger is still playing so well is what keeps our hopes and expectations up!

But yeah - Roger's still got some spunk in him, amazingly so considering his age. I imagine that Rafa's and Novak's fans will be pleased as pie if they're #3 at age 33!

Good thread, El Dude. I can appreciate the frustration of the fans who are tantalized by a final, and then disappointed, once again, in the last match. You've laid out reasons and stats about how Roger's late career is going. 2013 was a disappointment, but 2014 is on a good track, broad strokes. And I think comparisons to Pete's late-career will be made. The Agassi one is different, as you well-pointed out.

Roger is a bit of an anomaly, in his consistency of performance at a very high level. However, I do object to the fans that downplay a loss by Roger without giving some real credit to the winner. (Which I think you've spoken to, and I know you're a fan.) Federer wasn't very fine yesterday, but Tsonga was committed and focused. As someone suggested, on this thread, or another, Tsonga probably wanted it more. But the notion that Roger 'shouldn't lose to the likes of…' is a bit galling. That's 2010 (or whatever) Roger, not 2014 Roger, and also doesn't address improvements by Wawrinka, and Jo-Wil, for example. Neither Stan nor JWT is stuck in aspic of their former selves, nor is Roger. When they met in 2014, circumstances were different for each, and so, consequently, were the results.

 

[herios]

^ He had no condition change issues at Monte Carlo and just played poorly and played a heap of $h1t 3rd set TB against Novak at Indian Wells so I think it's more a problem with focus and hitting less sloppy errors more than anything personally.

Therein lies the biggest issue: Why is he hitting those sloppy errors? I don't think it is because of his hands. He does not all of a sudden forget how to hit a forehand properly. In my opinion, it is the feet. More and more he is late to position himself to hit good shots, or just his usual shots. And towards the end of tournaments, it becomes even more apparent. Look at the Wimby final. How many good forehands did he hit? Again yesterday, how many times he tried to run around the backhand to hit a forehand and totally screwed it up? I lost count.

Running around a backhand to hit an inside out or inside in forehand to Roger was like breathing to you and me. It is not anymore. It is the feet.

I think you've nailed it. Timing is off because his footwork isn't what it once was. It's sad to see and unless he pays David Ferrer's doctor a visit it's not gonna change.

David Ferrer is an outstanding long distance runner, thus his stamina. The doctor will not help and Roger will not get at his age a distance runner either.

 

[Front242]

I wasn't even going to bother but actually I will. He worked for Lance Armstrong's doctor and actually never peaked till doing so funnily enough. Most people don't get fitter at 30+ without much help and Lance's doctor sure knows how to help.

 

[herios]

I wasn't even going to bother but actually I will. He worked for Lance Armstrong's doctor and actually never peaked till doing so funnily enough. Most people don't get fitter at 30+ without much help and Lance's doctor sure knows how to help.

You seem obsessed with this subject to me and unless you come up with links to document your statement, then please DO NOT BOTHER!