What now for Roger?

[GameSetAndMath]

This was more disappointing than last year's loss as the expectations were higher this time. He was serving big throughout the tourney with just one break given. He arrived at the final fresh like a daisy. In the end, it was a huge disappointment.

I don't see him winning AO or RG ever again. Some mild chances in USO, but I am not thrilled by his chances there either. He might be able to get a #2 seeding again in Wimby next year (as the formula will add a minimum of 2100 points to his ranking points before determining seeds). That would probably be his last chance ever at #18.

 

[jhar26]

A lot of things need to go right for Roger to win a slam at this point. He has to get through his first four or five matches in record time to conserve as much energy as possible. He has to have a first serve percentage of 70 or better. And he has to avoid having to play a five setter in the semis before facing someone like a Djokovic in the final. The thing is that this was exactly the scenario we got at this Wimbledon, and he still faded badly during the last hour or so of the final. I suppose that with a bit of luck (or a lot of it) he could have won the first two sets in which case the end result might have been different. But if you count it all up that's a mighty lot of ifs and buts that have to go Federer's way for him to win a major at this point. It's not entirely impossible, but extremely unlikely. Even more so since it can only really happen at Wimbledon and (evenless likely) at the USO. The AO and the FO are physically too demanding for him to go all the way.

Roger can (obviously) still play at an astonishingly high level. Over a best of three sets format he's still able to beat anyone, including Djokovic. But it's hard for him to keep it going for two weeks in a best of five sets format. I think that we can still expect some deep runs at slams and he still has a shot at winning masters 1000's - perhaps even a YEC. That's incredible for a 33/34 year old imo. And you never know. Stars may align in the right way for him and he still might be able to win a slam after all. But that's nothing more than an outside chance imo. Doesn't matter. His results of 2014/2015 are great enough to continue and add to his legacy.

But for the slams we are currently at the beginning of the post-big four era imo. In fact, we've been there for awhile without anyone really taking notice. We are now in the big-one era, with Djokovic being that one. With Federer only really in the mix at Wimbledon (unless he proves me wrong at the USO) and Nadal fading badly Murray seems like Djoko's most important challenger on a consistent basis. Other than Murray the biggest danger for Novak are "I played the match of my life" types like Wawrinka and Cilic. And there are plenty of candidates to take on that role for a slam here or there. But "normally" (but if "normal" exists it usually doesn't stay that way for a long time in sports) the slam stage is pretty much Djokovic' for now. I don't think that Nishikori, Raonic or the already (but possibly only temporarily) fading Dimitrov are number one material, although they could win a major at some point. And the world may be in love with Kyrgios because he's "a character", but characters from the past ike Connors and McEnroe didn't tank games. Even if he gets it right peak-Kyrgios is probably still a few years in the future. So I think that Djoko will be able to add to his slam total for awhile before being challenged by someone equally as good as himself.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think Roger is relaxed at this stage of his career. So I don't foresee the fire being gone or anything. On to the next tournament.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nole hits so much better on the run, that might be a factor in how he was hitting his approach shots. Overall I thought his net play was pretty good. The backhand, which has been really good all year, really let him down. And he just didn't serve well enough to make up for it. A great serving performance may have made this competitive at least.

This was a very competitive match.

For two sets, yes.

Roger was thoroughly outplayed in longer rallies unfortunately. That's what happens when you're 34 I guess.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

it's funny, really - i myself, two years younger than Fed and an avid fan for only about 70% of his career, am positively tennis-exhausted right now. but Fed? he seems content to keep on pushing.

i honestly would love for him to stick around Connors style, and spoil the party for others now and then - #18 or not.

that said, i still silently hope he rings up Martina Hingis and some other young retiree buddy, and starts dominating the doubles world, bagging a bunch of cheap bonus slam titles

 

[herios]

A lot of things need to go right for Roger to win a slam at this point. He has to get through his first four or five matches in record time to conserve as much energy as possible. He has to have a first serve percentage of 70 or better. And he has to avoid having to play a five setter in the semis before facing someone like a Djokovic in the final. The thing is that this was exactly the scenario we got at this Wimbledon, and he still faded badly during the last hour or so of the final. I suppose that with a bit of luck (or a lot of it) he could have won the first two sets in which case the end result might have been different. But if you count it all up that's a mighty lot of ifs and buts that have to go Federer's way for him to win a major at this point. It's not entirely impossible, but extremely unlikely. Even more so since it can only really happen at Wimbledon and (evenless likely) at the USO. The AO and the FO are physically too demanding for him to go all the way.

Roger can (obviously) still play at an astonishingly high level. Over a best of three sets format he's still able to beat anyone, including Djokovic. But it's hard for him to keep it going for two weeks in a best of five sets format. I think that we can still expect some deep runs at slams and he still has a shot at winning masters 1000's - perhaps even a YEC. That's incredible for a 33/34 year old imo. And you never know. Stars may align in the right way for him and he still might be able to win a slam after all. But that's nothing more than an outside chance imo. Doesn't matter. His results of 2014/2015 are great enough to continue and add to his legacy.

But for the slams we are currently at the beginning of the post-big four era imo. In fact, we've been there for awhile without anyone really taking notice. We are now in the big-one era, with Djokovic being that one. With Federer only really in the mix at Wimbledon (unless he proves me wrong at the USO) and Nadal fading badly Murray seems like Djoko's most important challenger on a consistent basis. Other than Murray the biggest danger for Novak are "I played the match of my life" types like Wawrinka and Cilic. And there are plenty of candidates to take on that role for a slam here or there. But "normally" (but if "normal" exists it usually doesn't stay that way for a long time in sports) the slam stage is pretty much Djokovic' for now. I don't think that Nishikori, Raonic or the already (but possibly only temporarily) fading Dimitrov are number one material, although they could win a major at some point. And the world may be in love with Kyrgios because he's "a character", but characters from the past ike Connors and McEnroe didn't tank games. Even if he gets it right peak-Kyrgios is probably still a few years in the future. So I think that Djoko will be able to add to his slam total for awhile before being challenged by someone equally as good as himself.

I completely agree with you.

 

[calitennis127]

Nole hits so much better on the run, that might be a factor in how he was hitting his approach shots. Overall I thought his net play was pretty good. The backhand, which has been really good all year, really let him down. And he just didn't serve well enough to make up for it. A great serving performance may have made this competitive at least.

This was a very competitive match.

For two sets, yes.

Roger was thoroughly outplayed in longer rallies unfortunately. That's what happens when you're 34 I guess.

Or when someone just has a better backhand than you do with better offense than Murray.

Where were your age comments after Federer beat up on 28-year-old Andy Murray?

 

[Fiero425]

I've been saying for years Roger needs to skip AO and FO; just not worth the effort to fly to or and play at Federer's age! Something's wrong in his head if he continues to waste the time and energy going "Down Under" or wasting effort running around on clay with all the kiddies! That's one reason I've had a problem with him hanging in there; not as realistic! He continues to try and trade groundstrokes, playing long points and matches until this past Wimbledon! He's only going to get more vulnerable as time goes on! He's doing a good job overall keeping his interest and results, but sooner or later he has to cut it back even more! He has the seniority to skip events, but he's not doing it! When he starts missing quarters, maybe he'll pay attention to this and figure it out! ;-)

 

[brokenshoelace]

This was a very competitive match.

For two sets, yes.

Roger was thoroughly outplayed in longer rallies unfortunately. That's what happens when you're 34 I guess.

Or when someone just has a better backhand than you do with better offense than Murray.

Where were your age comments after Federer beat up on 28-year-old Andy Murray?

Irrelevant. Federer, even at this age, is still a far better offensive player than Murray, so when he's clicking on a fast surface, there's not much you can do.

Age does become a problem against Djokovic who's more powerful, a better mover at this point, fitter, etc... Unless Roger seemed to you akin to his 2006 self. There's a reason Federer is 2-9 against Djokovic and Nadal in majors since 2010. That's no accident.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

it's funny, really - i myself, two years younger than Fed and an avid fan for only about 70% of his career, am positively tennis-exhausted right now. but Fed? he seems content to keep on pushing.

i honestly would love for him to stick around Connors style, and spoil the party for others now and then - #18 or not.

that said, i still silently hope he rings up Martina Hingis and some other young retiree buddy, and starts dominating the doubles world, bagging a bunch of cheap bonus slam titles

I do expect Roger and Hingis to play in Mixed Doubles in next year's Olympics. But, I do not expect him to extend his career by playing doubles (neither Men's nor Mixed).

But, I have a feeling that he might continue to play singles even after the end of next year. While we fans are obsessed with #18 and make it the be all and end all, may be it is not like that for him. As long as he can keep winning 4 0r 5 smaller titles a year and have a puncher's chance at GS if couple of favorites get upset, he might keep playing.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

He takes a couple weeks off now, trains a bit for Canada, makes the semis there, goes to Cincy, makes the final there , losing to Nole, and wins the Us Open, beating Stan in the final.

Yep, that just about sums it up...

 

[19USC66]

Although I am not sure RF will ever win another major? I am still far more impressed with his play today than I was when he was winning everything. Big Federer fan, but his effort and competitive desire once he passed 30 is really something. Federer is no quitter by any means. He was the under dog and lost, as expected, but he continues to put himself in position to win another big tournament. Very impressive indeed. However, to the mouth piece announcers. No, he is not playing like he did when he was 25.





All the Fed fans who want to trash him and throw him under a bus, I've got a simpler solution- stop watching him.

I'd still prefer watching the well managed decline and the odd displays of brilliance like I saw against Murray on Friday. Didn't expect him to beat Djokovic, so wasn't too disappointed.
[/quote]

 

[nehmeth]

He takes a couple weeks off now, trains a bit for Canada, makes the semis there, goes to Cincy, makes the final there ,losing to Nole, and wins the Us Open, beating Stan in the final.

Yep, that just about sums it up...

I agree with part of this.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

He takes a couple weeks off now, trains a bit for Canada, makes the semis there, goes to Cincy, makes the final there ,losing to Nole, and wins the Us Open, beating Stan in the final.

Yep, that just about sums it up...

I agree with part of this.

It's a package deal, take it or leave it !

 

[nehmeth]

He takes a couple weeks off now, trains a bit for Canada, makes the semis there, goes to Cincy, makes the final there ,losing to Nole, and wins the Us Open, beating Stan in the final.

Yep, that just about sums it up...

I agree with part of this.

It's a package deal, take it or leave it !

Changing it....
Wins Roger's Cup, Loses Cinci to Nole, gets knocked out in quarters of U.S. Open by Raonic.

uzzled :nono

 

[shawnbm]

Roger had two set points against Nole in the first set--he played himself into those and was winning the set for all intents and purposes. He did what he had to do, but Novak hit two unreturnable serves like Fed has done to many over the years. He then played better in the tiebreak. Roger guts out the second set saving something like 6 set points (admittedly, Novak got tight and erred on two or three of them), and then had a chance for an early break in the third set and Nole pulled it out again with a great service. he then breaks Roger after he was up 40-15 on his service. Roger was there, but Novak was better in the end.

 

[Fiero425]

Roger had two set points against Nole in the first set--he played himself into those and was winning the set for all intents and purposes. He did what he had to do, but Novak hit two unreturnable serves like Fed has done to many over the years. He then played better in the tiebreak. Roger guts out the second set saving something like 6 set points (admittedly, Novak got tight and erred on two or three of them), and then had a chance for an early break in the third set and Nole pulled it out again with a great service. he then breaks Roger after he was up 40-15 on his service. Roger was there, but Novak was better in the end.

...and???? uzzled :nono - That was a long way to go to say "Roger was there, but Novak was better...!" :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger had two set points against Nole in the first set--he played himself into those and was winning the set for all intents and purposes. He did what he had to do, but Novak hit two unreturnable serves like Fed has done to many over the years. He then played better in the tiebreak. Roger guts out the second set saving something like 6 set points (admittedly, Novak got tight and erred on two or three of them), and then had a chance for an early break in the third set and Nole pulled it out again with a great service. he then breaks Roger after he was up 40-15 on his service. Roger was there, but Novak was better in the end.

I don't have problems with the two set points that Fed could not convert in 1st set. But, are you forgetting that he was up a break in the first set (which was a love break preceded by a love hold). However, I think he should have been extremely careful and protected his services games after breaking Novak. He was up 4-2 after the break. All that he needed to do was to hold for two more games. It is the first set and you cannot lose mental focus.

Although Fed managed to win the second set (especially impressed with the two set points that he saved off Novak's serve), if he had to struggle that hard just to stay in the match, almost all of us expected that there will be a let down and he will lose the 3rd set. Once he loses the third set, we know he will lose the match, as the only way to win the match would be in 5 sets.

 

[Fiero425]

Roger had two set points against Nole in the first set--he played himself into those and was winning the set for all intents and purposes. He did what he had to do, but Novak hit two unreturnable serves like Fed has done to many over the years. He then played better in the tiebreak. Roger guts out the second set saving something like 6 set points (admittedly, Novak got tight and erred on two or three of them), and then had a chance for an early break in the third set and Nole pulled it out again with a great service. he then breaks Roger after he was up 40-15 on his service. Roger was there, but Novak was better in the end.

I don't have problems with the two set points that Fed could not convert in 1st set. But, are you forgetting that he was up a break in the first set (which was a love break preceded by a love hold). However, I think he should have been extremely careful and protected his services games after breaking Novak. He was up 4-2 after the break. All that he needed to do was to hold for two more games. It is the first set and you cannot lose mental focus.

Although Fed managed to win the second set (especially impressed with the two set points that he saved off Novak's serve), if he had to struggle that hard just to stay in the match, almost all of us expected that there will be a let down and he will lose the 3rd set. Once he loses the third set, we know he will lose the match, as the only way to win the match would be in 5 sets.

Even though I think Nole's the man, I'm so glad he's not my fave! He's either the unluckiest guy out there where an opponent gets all the breaks and doesn't miss on a "big point," or he has these "walkabouts" losing a set when ahead and multiple chances to close it out! I know no one's going to believe I make predictions close to the end of a match! At the '11 USO and '12 AO I thought Nole would get a break in the 3rd and 4th sets respectively and have a chance to serve it out! We all know what happened both times; lost his serve, then the TB and had to close it out in the next set! At AO he was lucky enough to come back from a break down in the 5th; Nadal's luck finally running out! This happens to Nole too much for me to have him as a fave; I'd "lose it" when he drops a set when "WAY AHEAD" again and again! Roger should have been toast in straight sets but for Nole's meltdown and "walkabout" with 6 set points in the 2nd! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

^I wouldn't criticise Roger too much for that return of the break. Here's a stat I would love to see collated... how often does a player break back after getting broken. I guarantee you Novak is at the top of that list in the entire Open era. He is absolutely phenomenal at doing that. I've seen it time and time again