It's all just a little bit of history repeating

Substitute "Federer" for every "Sampras" in this article and you'd be hard pressed to contend that the subject matter isn't the Swiss maestro (apart from the Court 2 mentions):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon/2068324.stm

Perhaps this most chilling of Pete's quotations for all Fed fans:

"I plan on being back. I'm not going to end my time here with that loss."

He did.

Yes it is reminiscent of that Sampras loss at wimbeldon. But by the way Pete did win the USO the following year so it isn't all that tragic a story.

socal1976 wrote:Yes it is reminiscent of that Sampras loss at wimbeldon. But by the way Pete did win the USO the following year so it isn't all that tragic a story.

Even if he didn't it still wouldn't be a tragic story, any body would live up with 13 Grandslams and the precious money pocketed in the bank.

Great article , thanks for the link, it is very touching and yes the story line looks stellar similar, actually it coincided with Fed winning Wimbledon 2012 the same year after a decade when Sampras won his last, but Fed wants to go one step more and didn't retire there.

In my view Fed always stayed 1 step slightly above Sampras and the reitrement end would be similar as well, lets wait and see.

Perhaps if he hadn't won at USO he would have come back to W 2003 - who knows.

But I do think that what is said in the immediate shock of defeat with several dozen journalists pressing, is not necessarily what a player might decide 6 months down the line.  Then other factors like illness or injury might hurry a retirement along.

I doubt that Federer or Nadal or Djokovic, as multi slam winners, will hang around outside the top 10 for any length of time - and that probably is the same for Murray too.  If they feel they have maximised their potential - they will go when the time is right.

Is there ever a right time, Big Mac played on for 8 yrs from his last slam win, he was only 25 at the time, but didn't progress past the semi's more than 5 times in over 20 slams.

If history is repeating itself then I look forward to Federer winning the US open this year!!

The speculation about Federer's retirement just because he lost in R2 is a bit premature, IMO.

Nadal lost in R2, so what, he came back stronger.

We should enjoy TMF as long he chooses to play, even if it is the qualifiers at W.

Doing a Borg is almost unthinkable for Federer.

Roddick called it a day, but Federer just won Halle.

All retirements are similar, in hindsight.

laverfan wrote:We should enjoy TMF as long he chooses to play, even if it is the qualifiers at W.

 Exactly

Nice thoughts, but in reality, do you think you'd enjoy him being pawned by a journeyman ?

JubbaIsle wrote:Nice thoughts, but in reality, do you think you'd enjoy him being pawned by a journeyman ?

Cetainly not, a guy like Ferrer could not get on elusive win for 2 decades so how on earth journeyman's deserve one free and easy its very unfair, Fed cares less about his legacy and ego than his fans do.

Seriously Soderling had to wait like 11 + games, Davydenko similar, Ferrer yet to win one, Youzhny yet to win one and silly journeymans like Sergy and Nishi comes in takes one. 

Yes, but the longer he continues the more this is going to happen.

Don't you think those who want to see him continue until it becomes embarrassing is a little selfish after all he has provided them in his career so far ?

I think this is one time when the "right" time is now, this year. It reminds me of investment planning, when you eventually sell, next week always shows a higher premium. If Federer is going to get one more slam, but we don't know when or where, is it going to be worth the trouble getting blown out of the water chasing a slam that might never happen ?

What embarassment jubba? Where's the embarassment in losing to a better player, should he have been embarassed about this second round loss? It's just a tennis match and this is not boxing where he could get seriously hurt.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What embarassment jubba? Where's the embarassment in losing to a better player, should he have been embarassed about this second round loss? It's just a tennis match and this is not boxing where he could get seriously hurt.

Absolutely yes, and only a professional tennis player would understand that. Disappointment, frustration and awkwardness was shown in his walk to the dressing room, you don't expect him to be numb from the brain down or happy he lost ?

Also, in 5yrs time, being beaten by say Alex Bogdonovic won't be embarrassing ? hell, why not keep playing into your 50's, sod the prolls, I'll just prop up the 1st round of every tournament because I've got nothing better to do that morning, I love tennis that much and I love my fans even more.

By the way, it is actually more than a tennis match unless you think smacking a ball at 200 mph at your opponent is just a tennis match.

Connors played until he was 40+ and lost to an assortment of journeymen in his late 30s. It didn't really matter to Connors' fans I don't think. It was up to him whether he still wanted to be out there playing.
And of course, there was the run to the US Open semi at age 39, which he described as the best 2 weeks of his career.

So why shouldn't Fed play on if he wants to - he doesn't owe his fans anything that should prevent that.

Yes, but they all did in those days, it was accepted to play on and compete, part of the game. Its not like that anymore, since Sapmras retired when he started losing, maybe because of the amount of titles he won (14) in 2002, we've not seen the same pattern since.

I'd say with the intensive attention the media extol on players today, the pressures and the strains of modern tennis on tour, defeats like Federer's go down worse than Sampras's 2nd round exit at the hands of Bastl here in 2002, there was not the internet frenzy of Facebook and Twitter around in those days and replays galore on Utube etc.

I can see your point that its up to him when he retires, I'm only saying that the longer it goes on, the more early defeats he will suffer and ultimately the public's high perception of him will falter, don't forget it is the likes of you and me and not historians that witnessed Federer in his prime.

The record books wont care about his latter day losses, only the amount of wins he amassed, so those in the future will look on Federer as a god, the rest of the world today might not in a few years time. I remember almost ignoring Pete's demise that year, a day after it happened, everyone got on with their day job and there was a couple of days when it got reported about, but after that it was forgotten. The rest of the tournie went on and produced more memorable events.....Philippoussis v Krajicek 5 setter, Greg Rusedski in the 4th round and Tim Henman in the semi's (in fact Youzhny got to the 4th round that year), so far, Nadal and Fed have been the talking point for over a week now and shows no signs of abating.

socal1976 wrote:Yes it is reminiscent of that Sampras loss at wimbeldon. But by the way Pete did win the USO the following year so it isn't all that tragic a story.

Sorry socal....he won the US Open in 2002, didnt play any events for 12 months, then retired just before the USO 2003, effectively retiring in 2002 really.