Be Careful What You Wish For

For what feels like ages there has been much talk of Federer's slow decline into retirement and Nadal's knees forcing him to take a quicker path to retirement. Some speculated that this might be a good thing. It would be like a breath of fresh air if Djokovic and Murray could take over as a new dominant pair. Collect their rightful and "deserved" slams and have their moment in the sun without the two big clouds of Roger and Rafa hogging everything.

We are perhaps getting a little taste of what the new order might look like. Federer although still more than capable of turning on the sparkle to add to his slam collection is at a stage in his career when it must be difficult to get excited about anything less. To him another Cincinnati title is far from life or death. We probably have Nadal to thank that he still finds the energy and hunger in slams... Nadal also is at a stage in his career when he has less to prove. Certainly not worth risking knees for a masters unless maybe it is Monte Carlo. I also wonder how his motivation will be affected if and when Federer does retire. Will Djokovic keep him interested?

The problem IMO for spectators has been that with Federer and Nadal understandably not willing or able to fight for anything less than a slam the rest of the tour appears to have followed suit. Instead of taking the opportunity to fight for what was once seen to be important titles in their own right. Other players are also treating Masters tournaments as lesser events. The tension and excitement at Masters tournaments just isn't what it was just a few years ago (With the exception of the clay masters because of the Nadal/Djokovic situation at the time). The lack of new young players who would view a masters title as a break through doesn't help.

Maybe I'm just seeing things through the biased eyes of a Federer and Nadal fan. So of course would like to hear from anyone that can persuade me differently.

Very insightful for once and what's more amazing is that you are not asking questions

Federer at the moment is experiencing a mini revival in form and fortune. Many bias Nadal fans would point to the Spainard not being at the business end of tournaments to which he has tasted success.

It does beg the question if Federer decides to play on if he declines in form to the point his ranking becomes affected, would fans still watch. If you go back to the days of Sampras and Agassi when Sampras retired winning his last Slam despite rotten form since his Wimbledon glory days had deserted him. Agassi chose to play on as he believed he could still win Slams and plus he was enjoying his tennis a tad more. I would argue being an Agassi fan that he should've retired after the 2005 US Open.

Nadal very much the marmite player of his generation, so much does depend on his health and fitness. As you would expect he is paying the price for such a physically demanding style of tennis. If he wants to prolong his career, he will need to look at ways of making his game much more economical. If he chooses to still play in this physical style then I can only see a decline on a faster scale of say compared to a Federer. If he sacrificed some of his speed and stamina in order to accomodate more precise and powerful groundstrokes will he still generate similar successes? I am not so sure.

In terms of Djokovic and Murray, well Djokovic was sped way in front of him in achievement stakes. Also his game has evolved into a much more complete and finished article compared with Murray's. What you are witnessing with Djokovic is a peak that eclipses the current crop. Yes 2012 has been a poorer year for him compared with 2011, but let's be realistic the standards of 2011 were difficult enough to match let alone surpass. He still made 2 Grand Slam finals and won one seemingly not at his best. Form is a temporary measure and it won't be long before he is amongst the titles and Slams again. Murray you feel it is still a start. We have been here before after his Slam finals. You had an 18 month period between his first Slam final and his 2nd Slam final. Even then he was well and truly beaten. 2011 in fairness was the start of him reaching that goal of Slam success and moving on from Wimbledon heartbreak he achieved a Gold Medal which can only serve as a major motivation to be able to finally win that elusive Slam. You have to question his current fitness because if that deprived him of playing at the US Open 100%, then I don't see him being able to overcome such a setback on the back of Olympic success.

Now the younger crop in Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison can they really put themselves in contention against the likes of Ferrer, Tsonga Berdych and Del Potro? Probably not. If you took at the top 4, could Tomic or Raonic seriously defeat a Del Potro or Ferrer? You only have to look at Raonic against Isner. Isner had played a 3 setter before their encounter and Raonic was sunk in 2 sets and that for me was a massive disappointment. It leaves me fearing for the quality of tennis beyond the current talent at the top of the game.

With Nadal sadly his knees will always be limiting but hopefully will remain manageable. He appears to get motivation from the excitement of competition. Thankfully Federer's not retired yet and Djokovic is still a little problematic..

After the Olympics thinking about how lucky tennis players are to have the possibility of a long stuctured career if they are good. Unlike say Phelps or Bolt. What now do they do with all that talent. Of course they won't have to worry financially but the difficulties of no longer doing what you are so good at and have trained all your life to do. Was reading about Ian Thorpe after his excellent swimming commentary and he suffered from depression after retirement . Sort of understandable.

Well if you watched the Olympic report this morning there was a piece on athletes who retire completely from the world of sport and the challenges they face in terms of diets and fitness levels. Also it touched on the mental aspect they face with retirement.

I would like to think that Federer would stay on in some capacity in the sport and look in ways to keep the excitement in tennis and ensure tennis plays to the talent of such players.

My fear about Federer is that he will go the way of Stephen Hendry, for example. Hendry enjoyed winning, he did not "enjoy" playing the game after his powers had gone like Steve Davis Once Federer hits the cliff and he does start to go downhill rapidly and gets beat in the earlier rounds of majors, he could well leave us sooner than later. I still think he has another year or 2 at least at the top of the game but does anyone, including himself, see him as anything other than a Top 4 Player?

I don't see him as a top 4 player because he is a top 3 player.

Would you have said this if he didn't lose the Olympics? Murray gets 1 good result against a fatigued player and suddenly...

No you misunderstand, I can't see Federer being in the same quarter of a major draw as another "Top 4".

You could have made that more obvious by saying "does anyone see him competing when he drops out of the top 4". Anyway I agree with your point, once he is losing early in majors it would be the right time.

I know, I read it back and thought it was very unclear.

Good article HE

Although I've said that it was only a fool who could have expected The Rogers Cup to be anything other than 'after the Lord Majors show'

I can't beleive that Cincy has followed immediately

So we've had an Olympic final and two Masters final all in the space of 2 weeks and a few hours

Can't disagree. I'd have Djokovic as favourite, Federer and Murray as joint second favourite, Nadal as 4th favourite if he's there due to lack of matches, especially on hard courts, and Del Potro as 5th favourite but the tournament will be won by a top 4 player.

While I am in no rush for either fed or Nadal to leave the game as I think they make things more interesting and spark a lot more coverage of the sport. But frankly i am not worried about it, new stars eventually rise up. We may have a doldrums period for a couple years like when Sampras and Agassi started to get older. Del Po, Murray, and djoko in reverse order will help carry the game but certainly when fed retires there will be a loss that you can not just replace.

This a very good and thought-provoking topic Hawkeye. I actually think that Roger, despite winning his 17th slam, is still in decline. The Olympic final is very strong evidence of this. Who would have thought that someone with Roger's sterling record on grass would lose 2-6, 1-6, 4-6 to a man that he rolled back the years to beat a few weeks before? I think it is a sign that Roger's body is beginning to buckle under the strain of the demanding ATP tour.

For Rafa, the case is somewhat more complicated. Rafa has won the majority of his slams playing a very physically demanding style of tennis, and to make any changes to it now would be to alter his style of play in a fundamental way. The main reasons why he is so dominant on the red clay of Roland Garros is that he is first and foremost an impenetrable wall from the back of the court. It takes at least eight great shots to win a point. This can wear on the psyche of even the most mentally tough of players. Of course, Rafa is not all defense and his muscular forehand supplements his excellent defensive skills. Rafa may have to look at the formula that won him the US Open (i.e. a dominant serve), if he is to get any sort of longevity.

As for the future of the game, I agree with Socal, I think tennis will go through a transitional period similar to when Sampras and Agassi exited the stage, and then a generation of talented players will fill the breach.

Yes Kemet this is a natural process on the tour, when a huge star like Roger leaves the game there is no way to quote replace him. But other players do come up and move the game forward. There may be a doldrums period in terms of interest and quality at the very top if Nadal and Fed left in short order, but certainly other talents would rise up to energize the game.