Should Roger Federer Contemplate Retirement After 2012

First topic message reminder :

Borg retired early. Sampras retired at 31. One of my favourite films is American Gangster and the scene were Frank Lucas is in Thailand and his supplier tells him 'Quitting while your ahead is different to quitting'

Roger is not getting any younger and this year will turn 31. Is still enough in the game for him to continue on beyond 2012? This year will no doubt see his last opportunity to win Gold at the Olympics and also 3 Slams left in this season.

I do wonder how he manages to keep his hunger and desire to still get up, train hard and still perform at tournaments around the world. Your a 16-time Slam champion. Career Grand Slam in the bag and in most courts the GOAT.

Is there enough in the game for Federer to achieve slam success? Looking at the recent Australian Open and the final which showed that the game has past him by because the art of shot-making is a dying art and for Federer to try and find something different to achieve success is beyond limited. The net play has improved and also the BH has shown some great consistency compared in recent years.

Where do you see Federer's best chance of Slam success? Do you think he has thought about retirement seriously this year?

For me his best chance of success would be at Wimbledon. I think he may forfeit success on Clay as he may look upon Nadal and Djokovic really slugging it out and taking physical tolls on each other which would leave Wimbledon as a realistic chance of success. Maybe just maybe Flushing Meadows might offer something.

Should he play beyond 2012?

If i had a nickle for everytime SA said federer i would be rich!

Simple_Analyst wrote:where did i say Eli is talentless? Eli is not as talented as hid brother but nevertheless a great player i admire and like very much. Always comes through in the 4th quarter and does not choke like Federer.

Out the full NFL roster, two teams were in the SuperBowl, one won, one lost. Both of them deserve credit for their wonderful season, rather than this jaundiced myopic diatribe.

Federer has retired and SA has stopped watching Tennis, since Tennis died.

As LM says, rehab beckons, the first step is to admit that one has a problem to take a step towards recovery.

LuvSports wrote:If i had a nickle for everytime SA said federer i would be rich!

... and the EuroZone financial crisis would be over.

Hopefully, Fed will give it a couple of years at least. You're a long time retired. Mac bitterly regrets taking a break around 1986-87 as he never managed to recapture his earlier form except in bursts (two Wimbledon semis, for example).
Fed said he wanted his daughters to see him play. Well they watched his knock up against Rafa in the AO semi but they're only two and a half so may be he will carry on for their sake.
If he's still top four and still able to give the best guys a game then I think he'll carry on. Let's hope so, as something will go out of the sport when he finally jacks it in.

He will win the French Open or Wimbledon.

Mark it down boyz

Actually, the French and Wimbledon are the two slams Fed has failed to reach the semis of since 04. Can't see him winning the French again although his performance last year there was one of his best. Wimbledon's a possibility but he was beaten by two non-top four guys in 10 and 11. Best chance - the American, specially if Rafa and Nole have crippled each other by then.

sirfredperry wrote:Actually, the French and Wimbledon are the two slams Fed has failed to reach the semis of since 04. Can't see him winning the French again although his performance last year there was one of his best. Wimbledon's a possibility but he was beaten by two non-top four guys in 10 and 11. Best chance - the American, specially if Rafa and Nole have crippled each other by then.

Presumably there's a typo here. Did you mean that they are the only two slams he has failed to reach at least the semi's of each year since 2004?

I think his best chance remains at the USO. He has shown that he can go toe to toe with Djokovic there for the last two years. Nadal will be hard to overcome on any surface in bo5.

Can't see him winning the French again although his performance last year there was one of his best.

Nadal cannot keep playing at his clay level forever though unless he's on something it's obvious Nadal's level will come down soon i'd say.

One of the somewhat sad things about the AO, Nadal looked much stronger on serve than Federer. I don't know what the match stats were but I seem to remember Nadal had a much higher first serve percentage and Federer didn't have an answer. When what used to be one of his biggest strengths no longer makes an impression you have to wonder if it's time to quit.

I think it was the same vs Djokovic in the final which is why the match was so close, Nadal was serving much better but Djoko's return kept him in there.

Fed shouldn't contemplate retiring until a suitable replacement has been found... That match just wasn't going his way, aside from his overall poor play, so many netcords and even when he had a chance to break Rafa back when he was serving for the match, that ball he just got his raquet to that somehow went in and then his missed smash. Besides how is his serve supposed to make much of an impression if the court conditions allow you to just stand 4m behind the baseline to return.

droogle wrote:I don't know what the match stats were but I seem to remember Nadal had a much higher first serve percentage and Federer didn't have an answer. When what used to be one of his biggest strengths no longer makes an impression you have to wonder if it's time to quit.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day16/1602ms.html

droogle wrote:I think it was the same vs Djokovic in the final which is why the match was so close, Nadal was serving much better but Djoko's return kept him in there.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Besides how is his serve supposed to make much of an impression if the court conditions allow you to just stand 4m behind the baseline to return.

PS: The Netchord.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/video/index.html#ooid=M5Zm9kMzq7nTPs9RK0TD_pc_hGWrHUup


There is a point, where Federer pulls Nadal all the way to outside the tramlines, Nadal runs all the way to the advertising boards and a CC FH past Federer who was at the net. The courts are treacle (in someone else's words).

PS: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/video/index.html#ooid=ZsNm5kMzptSOX5_dQ_UgYpZ76RrNao6u


BTW, is SA standing in line , without tickets, at Forum Fribourg?

laverfan wrote: There is a point, where Federer pulls Nadal all the way to outside the tramlines, Nadal runs all the way to the advertising boards and a CC FH past Federer who was at the net. The courts are treacle (in someone else's words).

As others have said Federer is not a natural serve & volleyer - he should have been closer to the net - he was trying to retrieve the ball at his ankles. He is mainly a baseliner. As others have mentioned harshly - some of his rushing to the net during this match (on other points) looked a little "clueless".

With the fitness of the players nowadays and the ball control at the racquet head (strings), dragging a player out wide, in particular Nadal or Djokovic - actually allows them to get a better angle for a winning cross-court return - especially if their opponent doesn't have a natural feel or read for net play.

I disagree. Federer is a very natural volleyer. He has the natural grip of a volleyer but more than that he has the best eye/hand coordination I have seen in 35 years.....and that is the main quality of a SVer. No point having the best technique if you don't have great reflexes and eye/hand coordination.

The sad reality is that the opportunities to volleys nowadays are so rare that, it's tough practising it. But Federer still manages to slip a good ratio of volleys in his matches and the stats are pretty good/high.

This clip perfectly explains what's wrong with those courts. The attacker exposes himself, the defender with a big arm, big legs can retrieve anything and loop in back in the court and that is enough to win the point as long as the loop has enough pace and energy.

Federer makes the right decision. He moves to cover the line as this is what Nadal usually does.....but Nadal can actually choose between along the line or cross court. Here he goes cross court without even having to get close to the line...the angle is enough to beat Federer.

Now Nadal with natural strings would have almost zero chance to pass Federer. It would have to be the perfect very risky shot...but not with those modern strings.

Modern conds are a real disgrace for attacking players. That's why you end up with 6 hours marathon finals instead.

Looking at the clip, it is about 3 seconds from when the ball leaves Federer's racquet to the time it comes back. Amazing shot.

Let us assume Federer has zero volleying skills.

Now take a look at this...

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/video/index.html#ooid=0wcGFlMzrYSpDcSfYQE3yKDGpp5Ruo8H

Does Djokovic also have zero volleying skills?

In the same highlights, Djokovic volleys several times.

Tenez wrote:I disagree. Federer is a very natural volleyer. He has the natural grip of a volleyer but more than that he has the best eye/hand coordination I have seen in 35 years.....and that is the main quality of a SVer. No point having the best technique if you don't have great reflexes and eye/hand coordination.

The sad reality is that the opportunities to volleys nowadays are so rare that, it's tough practising it. But Federer still manages to slip a good ratio of volleys in his matches and the stats are pretty good/high.

Finally, the voice of reason. As illustrated in the links I have provided on other threads, there are three youtube video compilations worth of expert Federer volleys.

The problem, as you say, is that Roger has not incorporated the volleying element into his game, and as such, this aspect of his game has suffered.

Also, as has been remarked many times on this forum, the current racquet technology and changed conditions have rendered the serve-volley game almost obsolete.

I know I am biased as a Federer fan, but there really is hardly anything that Roger cannot do well on a tennis court, with the exception of his backhand, which is his weakest shot.

Federer clearly assumed he'd already won the point with the high backhand volley... But he should know by now that against Nadal (and all the other superb retrievers) points need to won twice.
If he had been a little more alert and moved on to the net, he would have easily put that ball into the empty court... In a similar rally at the O2, Nadal wouldn't even try chasing down that backhand volley as it would have been a clean winner.

Is it poor volleying? No not really, certainly not poor technique, but I feel a player like Edberg would not have made that mistake as he'd be much closer to the net.

The area where Federer was standing is known as "no man's land". Even with the best volleying technique it's very tough to hit winners from no man's land!

I didn't question Federers volleying skills. I said that he wasn't a "natural" serve and volleyer, not having a natural "feel and read" for net play.

On a separate matter, the Rod Laver court has a very large running space around the court. Maybe one could narrow this space down - bring the spectators closer to the court. This would prevent players like Nadal being able to go so far "out of court" to get to the return (if that is what everyone wants).

kemet wrote:I know I am biased as a Federer fan, but there really is hardly anything that Roger cannot do well on a tennis court, with the exception of his backhand, which is his weakest shot.

You would have to be biased not to recognise that he has all the shots. WHat he hasn;t got is the energy of some of those new generation players.

No.

prostaff85 wrote:
Is it poor volleying? No not really, certainly not poor technique, but I feel a player like Edberg would not have made that mistake as he'd be much closer to the net.

Edberg had the best volleys....but even edberg would be completely hopeless today. At edberg's time, the game was played in 2 dimensions. That means for a passing shot to be successful and beat the volleyer, you had to hit the ball flat and pacy low over the net (much easier to volley). Nowadays the balls comes loopy and dip in your feet, which means it's very hard to give the volley pace and depth. Plus todays players are so athletic that they can get any volley. Look at Djokoic's problem in the subsequent clip. Had he played a drop shot or placed volley Nadal would have got it too.

Edberg woudl have never been faced with a ball coming back so pacy and loopy at him especially hit from the 1 row. I am serious when I said that today's Llodra would beat peak Edberg.

Watch any clip of Edberg and watch the first set of Llodra v Murray. Try to imagine what Edberg coudl have done that Llodra could not. Not much!

bluesun wrote:No.

Welcome to 606v2.

Tenez. Interesting that you mentioned Edberg. Away on my hols I was watching a recording of the Edberg-Courier AO final. Edberg - a great player - was playing totally mindlessly, coming in behind every serve to either get passed or having to dig out awkward half volleys around his toes from booming Courier returns.
OK, Edberg wasn't serving great but surely this was a taste of what was to come, with the bigger racquets, greater fitness and fantastic returning shooing the S and V guys (with only a few exceptions) out the back door.

sirfredperry wrote:Tenez. Interesting that you mentioned Edberg. Away on my hols I was watching a recording of the Edberg-Courier AO final. Edberg - a great player - was playing totally mindlessly, coming in behind every serve to either get passed or having to dig out awkward half volleys around his toes from booming Courier returns.
OK, Edberg wasn't serving great but surely this was a taste of what was to come, with the bigger racquets, greater fitness and fantastic returning shooing the S and V guys (with only a few exceptions) out the back door.

Yep, both Courier and Agassi have a healthy H2H v Edberg. But what what really killed SVing (Hewitt v Sampras shows it best) is the string technology that neither courier or Agassi had.

I am not kidding when I say that Edberg would have lost as convincingly (imo much more convincingly) v Murray than Llodra did.

Llodra made it look good and competitive for a set. Edberg's serve would have been hammered back.