Come Back Roger!

Ok I know it's probably wise to rest your old and creaking bones but surely a little light exercise and information gathering in Barcelona, Serbia or Portugal wouldn't do much harm? On second thoughts maybe not Barcelona...

Tennis is just not the same without Federer.

I know what you mean, but best get used to it.

He won't be around much beyond this year methinks .......

Personally I'm desperate to see some genuinely 'new' breakthroughs (not that I'm expecting any Federer clones .... not in my lifetime anyway...!!)

The three younger members of the Top Four are not really that young any more. Same group since around 2008. Even the Beatles stopped touring after four years, it was all studio-only stuff after that

Federer's 'old creaking bones' can start thrashing the 'Champions Tour' players, once he finishes in 2016, after the Brazil Olympics.

lags72 wrote:I know what you mean, but best get used to it.

He won't be around much beyond this year methinks .......

Personally I'm desperate to see some genuinely 'new' breakthroughs (not that I'm expecting any Federer clones .... not in my lifetime anyway...!!)

The three younger members of the Top Four are not really that young any more. Same group since around 2008. Even the Beatles stopped touring after four years, it was all studio-only stuff after that

Curious to why you think he won't be around much beyond this year? He's announced he's playing until "at least" 2016 Olympics, and he's shown no drop in form that suggest anyone outside of Top 4 is going to surpass him.

laverfan wrote:Federer's 'old creaking bones' can start thrashing the 'Champions Tour' players, once he finishes in 2016, after the Brazil Olympics.

Oh laverfan! I hope your right...

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:Federer's 'old creaking bones' can start thrashing the 'Champions Tour' players, once he finishes in 2016, after the Brazil Olympics.

Oh laverfan! I hope your right...

I would love to see Fedalovicurray in the stands at W, watching fondly over some W prodigy. I will probably bawl my eyes out.

Ha ha!

I dont think Federer would sit next to Djokovic. But I'm sure Murray would be proud to be included in such a "party".

hawkeye wrote:
Tennis is just not the same without Federer.

Hear hear! Doesn't it feel as though something's missing?!
We've got another two weeks of this.

TRuffin - Well, yes, I'm very conscious that he has made such announcements/comments - whether explicitly or by implication (?).

I happen to think that it always seem right for any athlete to dismiss retirement talk when things are going well - which undoubtedly they have been doing, esp. these past eight months or so. But ....... once the results drop off and there is more than just an occasional early round exit (which at some point there will inevitably be) then the overall perspective can change very quickly.

A few months back there was a discussion here with some saying he won't want to play once he falls even outside the top ten ; and others saying that he will play on as long he enjoys it regardless of his ranking - ie he has no hang-ups about status or 'pride'.

Ultimately I don't know any better than anyone else of course - and certainly not the Great Man himself !!

I'm not wishing him out. I just want him to remain a serious threat at most tourneys in the way that he clearly still is right now ; but not there to make up the numbers or merely for ongoing box-office appeal

lags72 wrote:TRuffin - Well, yes, I'm very conscious that he has made such announcements/comments - whether explicitly or by implication (?).

I happen to think that it always seem right for any athlete to dismiss retirement talk when things are going well - which undoubtedly they have been doing, esp. these past eight months or so. But ....... once the results drop off and there is more than just an occasional early round exit (which at some point there will inevitably be) then the overall perspective can change very quickly.

A few months back there was a discussion here with some saying he won't want to play once he falls even outside the top ten ; and others saying that he will play on as long he enjoys it regardless of his ranking - ie he has no hang-ups about status or 'pride'.

Ultimately I don't know any better than anyone else of course - and certainly not the Great Man himself !!

I'm not wishing him out. I just want him to remain a serious threat at most tourneys in the way that he clearly still is right now ; but not there to make up the numbers or merely for ongoing box-office appeal

I undestand.. but Federer has spoken at length about his understanding that he's content in his later years to play for the love of the game, to travel the world, meet new fans. I truly believe and I'm sure he does too that he can remain in top 8 if he plays full schedule until his mid 30's. That should be enough to keep him interested and competative.

Now I could see him deciding to go out if in a couple of years if he's still in a Major drought, is having bad results, and suddenly wins a Major.. he might go out like Sampras on one last big Title.... but I have a feeling we see him through Olympics.....health willing.

I would love to see Fed still in the mix whilst he can be a serious threat in the top 4/5 but would you REALLY want to see him struggle to stay up there in the rankings when he is well past his best..?? Like some of the popstars who still think they can keep relying on the hits that made them famous... Borg retired too young we think.. but what a way to remember him he was still up there amongst the greats. I would hate to think of Roger as a sad pathetic loser. Personally I feel that Roger will try for his Wimbledon crown and an Olympic Gold medal... and then join his family where I believe now his heart is.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I would love to see Fed still in the mix whilst he can be a serious threat in the top 4/5 but would you REALLY want to see him struggle to stay up there in the rankings when he is well past his best..?? Like some of the popstars who still think they can keep relying on the hits that made them famous... Borg retired too young we think.. but what a way to remember him he was still up there amongst the greats. I would hate to think of Roger as a sad pathetic loser. Personally I feel that Roger will try for his Wimbledon crown and an Olympic Gold medal... and then join his family where I believe now his heart is.

So a top 10 player , top 8 is a "sad pathetic loser"!? That type of thought is really alot of what's wrong in the world of sport from fans. That's pretty ultra elite,, esp if he's way older than everyone.. and I don't htink it will be a struggle for him at all. His game and talent will still be amongst the best into his mid 30's. I am sure if he's decrepid and can't make it past 1st,2nd rounds- he would bow out-- but a Federer making quarters, semis of big tournaments, upsetting a guy into the finals here and there is not something I think would bother him, and I sure wouldn't find fault with.

i hope he does continue as well. He still brings so much to the game on and off the court. And I think Roger has the quality where he will still be a potent competitor well into the 30s. He is helped by having a serve that might actually still be getting better and a great attack game. Plus he has never had a series of serious injury problems like most of the guys who play that long.


Plus I think Roger wants to stay relevant frankly for the money on some level. He is making approaching 50 million dollars a year and that is money that at that level he can only make if he is a top notch player on tour. I know he doesn't need the money but it is hard to walk a way from checks like that.

TRuffin wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:I would love to see Fed still in the mix whilst he can be a serious threat in the top 4/5 but would you REALLY want to see him struggle to stay up there in the rankings when he is well past his best..?? Like some of the popstars who still think they can keep relying on the hits that made them famous... Borg retired too young we think.. but what a way to remember him he was still up there amongst the greats. I would hate to think of Roger as a sad pathetic loser. Personally I feel that Roger will try for his Wimbledon crown and an Olympic Gold medal... and then join his family where I believe now his heart is.

So a top 10 player , top 8 is a "sad pathetic loser"!? That type of thought is really alot of what's wrong in the world of sport from fans. That's pretty ultra elite,, esp if he's way older than everyone.. and I don't htink it will be a struggle for him at all. His game and talent will still be amongst the best into his mid 30's. I am sure if he's decrepid and can't make it past 1st,2nd rounds- he would bow out-- but a Federer making quarters, semis of big tournaments, upsetting a guy into the finals here and there is not something I think would bother him, and I sure wouldn't find fault with.

Oh you really are splitting hairs arn´´t you you didn´t have to take it quite so literally .. I think you know exactly what Im saying but choose to misinterpret my meaning. However.. I wont bother to enlarge on it but I think you will find that Roger will consider his family more important than getting to the quarter finals of yet another tournament however much his fans wish him to be Peter Pan. In the last event it was having a family he could not take on tour with him that made MacEnroe retire.. but lets see.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:I would love to see Fed still in the mix whilst he can be a serious threat in the top 4/5 but would you REALLY want to see him struggle to stay up there in the rankings when he is well past his best..?? Like some of the popstars who still think they can keep relying on the hits that made them famous... Borg retired too young we think.. but what a way to remember him he was still up there amongst the greats. I would hate to think of Roger as a sad pathetic loser. Personally I feel that Roger will try for his Wimbledon crown and an Olympic Gold medal... and then join his family where I believe now his heart is.

So a top 10 player , top 8 is a "sad pathetic loser"!? That type of thought is really alot of what's wrong in the world of sport from fans. That's pretty ultra elite,, esp if he's way older than everyone.. and I don't htink it will be a struggle for him at all. His game and talent will still be amongst the best into his mid 30's. I am sure if he's decrepid and can't make it past 1st,2nd rounds- he would bow out-- but a Federer making quarters, semis of big tournaments, upsetting a guy into the finals here and there is not something I think would bother him, and I sure wouldn't find fault with.

Oh you really are splitting hairs arn´´t you you didn´t have to take it quite so literally .. I think you know exactly what Im saying but choose to misinterpret my meaning. However.. I wont bother to enlarge on it but I think you will find that Roger will consider his family more important than getting to the quarter finals of yet another tournament however much his fans wish him to be Peter Pan. In the last event it was having a family he could not take on tour with him that made MacEnroe retire.. but lets see.

I think Federer has been quite clear he plans for his family to travel with him, the girls to have Tutors,etc up to that point ... but of course, things can change- more children,etc--- so ur right- we'll see.

H-n... The 'genius' McEnore played his last slam in 1992, 8 years after his last slam title in 1984.

One thing that stands out is McEnroe's 'sense' of loss when Borg left the game.
If Nadal stops suddenly for whatever reason, will it impact Federer as badly as Borg impacted McEnroe?

If we assume a path, similar to McEnroe's, for Federer, which makes it 2018+- (with AO 2010 being the last slam win).

Borg clearly says that he had lost the desire and motivation for Tennis. Federer will continue similarly, but titles act like incentives for desire/motivation.

It is good to see him play.

LF some may remember, but there are many who dont, the outlying and off court circumstances that also lead to Bjorn´s retirement. Yes he did lose to JMc and yes he did lose his desire to win.. But what is not mentioned is that he was also caught up in an acrimonious divorce from his first wife (as you know he has been married three times) he married young and I believe she was a Hungaran tennis player (some of my memory may be a little vague but it made the newspapers at the time) They owned their own business.. the divorce and her money grabbing demands crippled him financially. I think his losses to Mc were all indicative of his frame of mind at that time. Mac gets the "credit" (if thats the word to use) for being the stick that broke Borg´s back but it was not the whole story

Hopefully we'll see Mr Caramel Eyes retire first.

Well Im glad we are not missing Tenez too much

Seriously, you can write a wall of semi-literate text saying Federer is a sad pathetic loser and I can't call Nadull Mr Caramel Eyes? Bit of a double standard!

reckoner wrote:Seriously, you can write a wall of semi-literate text saying Federer is a sad pathetic loser and I can't call Nadull Mr Caramel Eyes? Bit of a double standard!

Seriously ?????? no you cant be... you are calling ME sem´literate... and misquoting me... taking what Ive said out of context (try reading the post again) saying I have double standards about WHAT MAY I ASK... you quote a paraphrase written by someone else (which I neither have to or want to have to defend on her behalf) and suggest my friend the double standards are all yours... YOU obviously read all Nadal´s blogs which I dont even confess to doing..

Well I certainly don't want to cause you any offence, but perhaps you shouldn't bandy about phrases like "sad pathetic loser"? Just a suggestion!

I would hate to think of Roger as a sad pathetic loser. Personally I feel that Roger will try for his Wimbledon crown and an Olympic Gold medal... and then join his family where I believe now his heart is..


That is what I said in my post.... and you know it.
I have no reason to withdraw that comment... because I would not wish him to play beyond his sell-by-date ...

Well I still think it is disrepectful to refer to tennis players in that way. I'll remind you that Federer has won 16 Grand Slams and is seen by many (including one R. Nadal) as the greatest tennis player to play the game.

You dont have to remind ME of anything.... I said i WOULD HATE TO THINK OF HIM as such... J H C stop being atagonistic ...subject closed.

Even that "reminder" is insulting... what players do you assume I have been watching all these years... I dont need a history lesson from you

I'm not being insulting - from my point of view you are the one seeking to drag exchanges to a personal level!

Anyway, I am satisfied that you didn't mean to say that Roger is a sad pathetic loser, so let us draw a line under this.

Exactly... the line is drawn.



NB.. reckoner... I do not need to be reminded of Roger´s achievements... does anyone.. I may not be his personal greatest fan but I am in no way disrespecting what that man has achieved and I have always credited him with being the sole inspiration for Rafa.. without Roger Rafa would have had nothing to aim for.. I perfectly aware of that fact. I would like to see Roger retire as the player we know him to be... Not what he has been.

Well if that is the case, why would playing on cause you to see him as a sad pathetic loser? Do you see Jimmy Connors in this way?

Reckoner

understood.

I am glad to see H-N and R have come to an agreement. Fedal will always have a intertwined career history, like Borg-McEnroe.

I recall the financial woes that beset Borg and proved to be a very strong distraction in his Tennis career. Very

laverfan - Borg's financial woes were well documented at the time, but - IIRC - they arose from a series of misguided investment & business decisions that were made only AFTER he had retired from the main tour.

I may be wrong. Do you have good reason to believe that such woes actually affected his main playing career...?? Apart from his final few months on tour, I always thought the general consensus was that Borg was highly focussed on court - as evidenced of course by his quite outstanding W/L record. (I exclude his somewhat ill-fated 'comeback' )

Borg was amazing just because of his mobility while wearing those tiny shorts. Can you imagine what would happen to the pre serve preparation of a certain liquid eyed favourite of these forums if they had to play wearing those?!

Also, wasn't Borg's focus partly due to Bolivian marching powder?

My recollection is that Borg didn't 'retire' as such in 1981, he simply decided to take time off. He then found that when he wanted to play again in 1982, there was no protected ranking, so he would have qualify or ask for wild cards, and this, along with other dissatifactions with the tennis authorities led him to not bother coming back.

I think the money problems and 'recreational' activities came later.

I thought they were all at it according to Yannick Noah?

"Stimulants have long been popular on the tour. The celebrated diva Suzanne Lenglen braced herself between sets with sips of cognac. Eventually, alcohol in industrial quantities became the drug of choice on the circuit, and hangovers, not overdoses, were the greatest danger. As described in The Romance of Wimbledon, a book by John Olliff, The Daily Telegraph’s tennis correspondent, the ‘21 quarterfinal between Zenzo Shimidzu of Japan and Randolf Lycett of Australia was a drunken fiasco. Played on a blisteringly hot day, the match was deadlocked at a set apiece and 3-3 in the third, when Lycett seemed to suffer sunstroke and had to be revived with gin. Though wobbly, Lycett won the third set, but couldn’t continue without another stimulant — champagne. Apparently, he drank a whole bottle and by the fifth set was staggering and stumbling, falling and crawling around on his hands and knees, searching for his racket. While it’s not surprising that Lycett lost, it may shock some fans to learn that the Aussie wasn’t the last player to quaff champagne on Centre Court. That dubious honor belongs to Jimmy Connors and Ilie Nastase, who split a bottle during a doubles match in the mid-’70s and were seen as jolly good fellows for doing so."

Aaaah I'd pay to see that!

"Yannick Noah broke the silence in an interview with Rock & Folk, the French equivalent of Rolling Stone. While admitting that he smoked hashish, Noah accused other players of using cocaine. What’s more — and in his opinion what was worse — some were popping amphetamines. This infuriated him because it put clean players at a disadvantage. He lamented that they might have to use coke or amphetamines to stay competitive with drug abusers. He wanted the problem to be brought into the open and discussed. If it weren’t, Noah feared there would be deaths from overdoses.

The reaction of tennis authorities and the press was to savage Noah for smoking hashish. His remarks about coke and speed were ignored, as were the players whom he said “take the hit during a tournament and crash afterward. You have guys who have played super during one tournament and who you’ve never seen again.”

He mentioned Bjorn Borg and Victor Pecci by name."

"
In various books, player memoirs and investigative articles, it has been alleged that Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Vitas Gerulaitas and Pat Cash, winners of a combined total of 20 Grand Slam titles, used cocaine in the ‘70s and early ‘80s. During a comeback in the early ‘90s, Mats Wilander tested positive, along with Karel Novacek, for cocaine, adding Wilander’s seven Grand Slam titles to the legacy of “the coke generation.”
"

Poor Yannick Noah - being a whistleblower remains a thankless task!

JHM - I've no reason to doubt you're right in what you say there. The mini 'comeback' I was referring to in my post was some years later, by which time he would have been well into thirties. He played in main ATP tournaments but all I remember was a sad sequence of early exits (albeit at the hands of some respectable names, but still of a quality that wouldn't have troubled him too much in his pomp), and hence my description of it as ill-fated.

The game, the equipment, and indeed the world in general had moved on somewhat, and the I think the general view was that it would have been better had he not bothered at all.

lags72 wrote:JHM - I've no reason to doubt you're right in what you say there. The mini 'comeback' I was referring to in my post was some years later, by which time he would have been well into thirties. He played in main ATP tournaments but all I remember was a sad sequence of early exits (albeit at the hands of some respectable names, but still of a quality that wouldn't have troubled him too much in his pomp), and hence my description of it as ill-fated.

The game, the equipment, and indeed the world in general had moved on somewhat, and the I think the general view was that it would have been better had he not bothered at all.

That was in the 90s, right lags72? I remember that! He chose to use wooden racquets, bizarrely.

Yes it must have been reckoner.

He wanted to prove that he could still reproduce the magic and 'do the business' with his old wooden racquets, and that all this 'ere hi-tech stuff was nothing but an artificial aid for players who lacked his depth of talent and natural ability. Bizarre, as you say, and ultimately a little sad too. But back then those lower tier tourneys were rarely - if ever - televised and so I'm happy that all my visual memories of Bjorn are from his glory days and, as such, remain untarnished

Especially weird as he'd been playing with modern racquets before his comeback and went on to use modern racquets on the veterans tour...

Quite agree in his pomp Borg was just amazing. I grew up with the rumour that his resting pulse was 34 and used to think he was like superman!

reckoner wrote: I grew up with the rumour that his resting pulse was 34 and used to think he was like superman!

Navaratilova at resting pulse of 33 was perhaps the Cat Woman. Some amazing athletes, who perhaps should be given more credit than they are given today.

I wonder about Connors and McEnroe though. firebrands, both of them.

BTW, McEnroe still uses a wooden racquet, IIRC, when he plays.

Really? He was on the Dunlop Max 200G if I recall, which became my own weapon of choice at the time.

33 for Navrat? Must be amongst the lowest ever for a female sportswoman.
Apparently the 34 BPM for Borg was made up to fit his image...it was nearer to low 50s.

Didnt Mac also use the 200g? (reminded me a little of a forerunner to the Prostaff 85).

I was referring to Mac.

BB.. You are correct. I recalled him playing with a wooden racquet at one of the WTT events. It may have been just a show.