Will Fed get to 1258?

I don't know why I am in a poll kind of mood, maybe it is the lengthy 2 year long sheet show that is our presidential election. But its amazing to think that at age 34 Fed holds almost every record. But one of the big longevity records he doesn't have that is in my mind an underrated one is Connors all time match wins. Ok historical buffs, I know that Connors did play a lot of weak exho type tournaments and stiffs in his barnstorming days during the infancy of the tour; however just think of that its 20 years of 62 win seasons. A 62 win season most likely puts you in the top 3 or top 4 nowadays if not higher depending on what those wins are in terms of the events. He did it for 20 years. Now Fed needs 189 more wins to break the record. Realistically 3 sixty win years in a row when Fed is 37 is even going to be tough for Fed, I mean he won't get sixty this year most likely with all this time off and this could be the new norm. I think the record is going to fall and Fed will play as long as he can, he will play 4 years and break it. He just loves the adulation and the sport. He doesn't really care about resume anymore and hasn't for a long time.

I was 99% convinced the answer would be no, until I read your last two sentences. Thing is, he's coming up to 35 so going by the 4 more years he'd have to be 38 going on 39. Surely not? Especially if things get complicated with the kids.

I still think it's a no, but I'm down to 80%.

Does someone have the interest and time to do a little research: over the past 5 years what is the average retiring age of the professional male tennis player. If you have more time maybe you could extend it back another 5 years. One could do a similar study of the average age of the top ten and top twenty tennis players. My overall impression is that since the development of the open era tennis, average ages have been creeping upwards.

bogbrush wrote:I was 99% convinced the answer would be no, until I read your last two sentences. Thing is, he's coming up to 35 so going by the 4 more years he'd have to be 38 going on 39. Surely not? Especially if things get complicated with the kids.

I still think it's a no, but I'm down to 80%.

Yeah but I mean if he can tolerate a few more losses he can do it. I mean he isn't going to all of sudden drop out of the top 30 or anything like that. So it really comes down to whether he can tolerate being beaten by younger players he knows would never beat him in his prime. He seems to have not been too bothered by tough losses against younger rivals in recent years. I think it comes down to health and as long as he enjoys it, as long as those two things are there he could maintain a reasonably high level to rack up match wins into his mid to late 30s.

Nore Staat wrote:Does someone have the interest and time to do a little research: over the past 5 years what is the average retiring age of the professional male tennis player.  If you have more time maybe you could extend it back another 5 years.  One could do a similar study of the average age of the top ten and top twenty tennis players.  My overall impression is that since the development of the open era tennis, average ages have been creeping upwards.

Yes by average measure the age of the top ten, top 50, top 100 is now older in recent years than it has ever been. It comes down a great deal to advancements in technology, training, nutrition etc.

Can't see it...that's 65 wins per season for next 2-3 years.
Think he'll retire by end of next year.

I mean Federer's case is kind of unique, he isn't any other player.

1. He is the biggest earner in tennis and will remain top 5 in sports as long as he wants to play and he doesn't even need prize money. He can play two or three exhos and make more than winning two slams. But he needs to still be measuring himself against the tour and active

2. Fed has been really healthy

3. His style of quick point tennis with a lot of free points on serve let him stay competitive and in matches even if he is outmatched physically

4. Right now Fed still moves pretty damn well

5. Fed gets worshiped wherever he goes on tour and where else in your career are 15000 fans going to stand and cheer for you and yell your name.

6. He is a tennis junky, he loves tennis, he watches it when he isn't practicing or playing, he likes the tour and the travel. And flying in your own jet or Nike's kind of makes road trips easier.

I suspect in the past sportspeople had to retire to get a proper job and start a family.  Nowadays they don't ever need to get a proper job because the rewards are so great they can live off the interest and buy property and live off the rent.

I agree with BB. It is more likely no.

Fed just said in interview he fully intends to play at "least a few more years".
He might get there

A few?

Hmm. A couple is two, so is a few at least 3 surely.

I'd love to see Federer as a super-veteren, strolling around the tour annoying the Hell out of some guys 15 years his junior.

bogbrush wrote:A few?

Hmm. A couple is two, so is a few at least 3 surely.

I'd love to see Federer as a super-veteren, strolling around the tour annoying the Hell out of some guys 15 years his junior.

I think that is precisely what he will do. I don't know 5 years sounds like a lot to but I could certainly see him going on for 3 or 4 more years for sure. I only see injury as the only possible change in this because he enjoys the sport and the adulation too much, and an extra 200 million doesn't hurt either.