Roger Federer to Retire - Official

First topic message reminder :

Roger Federer has announced that the Laver Cup in London next week will be his last ATP event.

So this is finally the end for the great Swiss superstar. Has he been, and will he remain, the best-loved player of all time?

Federer may end up statistically as 3rd best of the big 3 in the GOAT stakes, but imho he was the only genius of the three. The only one who had a vision of shot-making that made you wonder not only how he pulled off a particular shot, but how he even thought of it in the first place. That's a major reason he became so popular and transcended his sport in the way that Pele, Ali, Messi etc did. Nadal and Djokovic never managed that.

Also, it's more difficult to be the first to do something - once he showed the others that 15+ grand slams and longevity into the late 30s was possible, it helped give them the belief, desire and inspiration to follow suit.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer may end up statistically as 3rd best of the big 3 in the GOAT stakes, but imho he was the only genius of the three. The only one who had a vision of shot-making that made you wonder not only how he pulled off a particular shot, but how he even thought of it in the first place. That's a major reason he became so popular and transcended his sport in the way that Pele, Ali, Messi etc did. Nadal and Djokovic never managed that.

Also, it's more difficult to be the first to do something - once he showed the others that 15+ grand slams and longevity into the late 30s was possible, it helped give them the belief, desire and inspiration to follow suit.

Sometimes the genius's don't have the best stats, just like Muhammad Ali doesn't have the best stats as a boxer.

Looked like Federer had a lovely send off yesterday.  All got a bit tearful for both Rog and Rafa by all accounts.  Nice way to go out, playing doubles with his greatest rival.

I was just thinking that we are going to see the rest of the 'big 5' retiring within the next 2-3 years, and possibly earlier so we are going to get some more emotional farewells of these modern day greats.  I expect Wawrinka will be next, followed by Murray in 2023, with Nadal to follow in 2024 and Djokovic possibly soldiering on til 2025.  It's going to leave a big void for others to fill - Alcaraz's breakthrough at US Open couldn't have come it a better time for the game really.

Has anyone else voted in the BBC's 'best moments of Federer's career' poll?  I went for his first slam at Wimbledon 2003 - the way he did it, serving and volleying behind both serves, and he wasn't the favourite (bookies favoured Agassi and Roddick), having had some bad early slam losses since beating Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.  BBC poll is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/62947999

It was a very emotional send off for Roger yesterday, seeing one of his fiercest rivals in tears would make a good ending to a cheesy sports film but it really happened!

Murray is my guy but Federer was my favourite of the big 3. He played so differently to everyone on tour, with so much creativity and flair, reliably executing shots that most others wouldn't even consider as an option or would simply be too "low percentage" for them.

I first started following tennis properly in 2009 so I actually never saw his absolute prime years except through highlights. I initially didn't like him, especially after the smug wimbledon ceremony with the "15" jacket, but as the defeats to Rafa and Novak started to rack up he seemed to humble and at some point I started routing for him in their matches.

His tennis really brought something different to the table, playing a brand of tennis that bridged completely different eras - one where serve and volley was the dominant play style, and another where baseline slugging was the standard way to play. Fortunately, I think we are now seeing a bit more variety on tour, with more players having success with a good transition game.

Over the years, there has been a lot of talk of Federer dominating in a weak era, and I understand why people might have said this, but I don't agree. I believe his style of tennis was simply optimal for beating the players of his own generation, who were good but did not play the style of tennis that bothered him.

The way to beat Roger is to grind him down by bringing him into extended rallies. For this, you need to get him to back off behing the baseline by hitting a consistently deep, heavy ball as Roger would eat up anything even remotely short. My feeling is that the players of his time could not push him back deep enough as they did not hit with the heavy topspin that is now a staple of today's game. I think this is because the poly strings that made that possible only came on the market in 1994, when Fed's generation of players would have been in their mid-teens and would therefore have already developed their strokes without this technology. This produced a generation of players who hit the ball rather flat on the whole, a style that Federer absolutely ate up (think Roddick, Blake Davydenko, Ljubicic). In contrast, Nadal's heavy lefty topsin forehand posed a unique challenge to Federer, who would get pinned further back and thus be
unable to step in and hit winners with the required regularity. However, it is on him that he didn't figure out how to handle the heavy topspin forehands to his backhand until 2017!

Speaking of 2017, that year gave me the most satisfaction as somewhat of a fan who didn't see him in his absolute pomp. What a year that was - Australia, the sunshine double, Wimbledon... More than that, it was how he won - with fearless, stupidly aggressive tennis, particularly on the backhand side! Amazing highlight reels there.

Thanks for the memories Rog, i can only hope we get to see another player that makes the game as fun to watch!

MrInvisible wrote:Has anyone else voted in the BBC's 'best moments of Federer's career' poll?  I went for his first slam at Wimbledon 2003 - the way he did it, serving and volleying behind both serves, and he wasn't the favourite (bookies favoured Agassi and Roddick), having had some bad early slam losses since beating Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.  BBC poll is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/62947999

I went for Australia 2017, just ahead of that first Slam in 2003. I remember during Wimbledon 2003 practically everyone throughout the tournament was picking Roddick to win it. Looking back it seems almost ludicrous that, knocking on the door of turning 22, Federer had still never been past the quarters of a Slam, had only ever gone that far twice - and the last of those had been two years ago.

From slacking underachiever to the natural heir to Sampras in the space of two matches.

But Australia 2017 was Rocky stuff, wasn't it? He had no business winning that tournament under those circumstances and it was arguably the toughest run he ever had to win a Slam as well. Also opened the door for him to get a few valuable wins over Nadal and exorcise the ghosts of Melbourne 2009, which he badly needed.

I think from Federer's perspective it's probably lost just a shade of its magic since Nadal passed his Slam total.I don't care what anyone says - that (protecting the record) was a major reason why his win at Melbourne in 2017 was so monumental for him, and Federer would have been absolutely heartbroken at Nadal eventually passing his 20, because that's the one record above all he'd have wanted to keep. His run 2017-18 had many, myself included, believing that he would indeed keep it.

But nevertheless it was still a stunning moment and probably his greatest achievement of the many astonishing ones he compiled.

The BBC ought to have included at least one moment from his 04-07 era of dominance, maybe the 07 Australian Open where he possibly played some of the best stuff he ever played

I, too, would regard his 2017 AO triumph as his greatest achievement.

You could argue that one decent serve on the two Champ Pts he had against Djoko at Wimbledon in 2019 would have led to a fitting finale for him. After his terrific win over Rafa in the semi (a marvellous match) a GS final win v Novak would really have been something.

I was fortunate enough to be on Centre Ct to see his victory over Sampras in 2001. This was one of the very few occasions when a result only became really significant many months later.

Incidentally, Pistol Pete has sent his own video message to Rog, paying, along with so many others, a nice tribute. It's a pity that Wimbledon match was their only meeting on the tour.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer may end up statistically as 3rd best of the big 3 in the GOAT stakes, but imho he was the only genius of the three. The only one who had a vision of shot-making that made you wonder not only how he pulled off a particular shot, but how he even thought of it in the first place. That's a major reason he became so popular and transcended his sport in the way that Pele, Ali, Messi etc did. Nadal and Djokovic never managed that.

Also, it's more difficult to be the first to do something - once he showed the others that 15+ grand slams and longevity into the late 30s was possible, it helped give them the belief, desire and inspiration to follow suit.

Statistics lie all the time but my eyes rarely do. Federer alongside Sampras are the to players who made me love watching tennis, you never knew what was coming next and the shot selection was at times outrageous in it's complexity and audaciousness. I can appreciate all that Nadal and Djokovic have achieved but did I ever get any real enjoyment seeing them win? Not at all, it was workmanlike rather than joyful.

We can talk about weak eras all we want but the simple fact is that as Federer got older he had Nadal, Djokovic. Murray and Wawrinka to a lesser extent to contend with, as Nadal and Djokovic have got older they've had Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas etc.

theslosty wrote:The BBC ought to have included at least one moment from his 04-07 era of dominance, maybe the 07 Australian Open where he possibly played some of the best stuff he ever played

I noticed the lack of any 2004-07 options in that poll, too. A little odd as you say seeing as those years were the years where he cast his biggest shadow over the rest of the tour.

I guess he was so dominant during those years, and so lacking in really significant rivals for much of it, that him winning was just seen as business as usual and nothing to take notice of. He was arguably the most dominant sportsperson in the world in any sport during those years.

If you wanted to pick something from those years, there's two obvious ones for me: the US Open in 2004 and then Wimbledon 2007. I pick the 2004 US Open for a couple of reasons, firstly because I saw a Eurosport interview with Federer the other day in the run up to the Laver Cup (I'm sure a couple of others saw it as well) where he specifically mentions that final against Hewitt as one which he wishes he could replay and experience again, and where he really was amazed at his own level of play. Two bagels in a Slam final against a world class, 2-time Slam winning opponent was verging on the outrageous and totally unprecedented on the men's side in the Open Era.

We've grown so accustomed to seeing these legends putting together 3-Slam years, it's easy to forget that it hadn't happened for 16 years before Federer did it in 2004. Again, this is just my feeling, but to me that back end of 2004 really seemed to ramp up the perception and expectations of Federer. Everyone knew he was the best in the world, and that he was going to be one of the greats, but even in the first half of the year there was the odd slip up, such as Henman in Rotterdam, a 17-year-old upstart called Nadal in Miami, losing in straight sets to an over the hill Kuerten at Roland Garros etc. He had a brilliant first half of 2004, but it was during those closing months of it (again, from my memory) where the discourse started shifting from him being a great player, to the possibility that we might just be seeing a player the likes of which might never emerge again. It was also after that US Open win when the talk and expectation of him beating Sampras' Slam record really seemed to become commonplace.

The other obvious moment from those peak years would be the 2007 Wimbledon final. Usually gets overshadowed by what happened twelve months later, but at the time it was by popular acclamation the greatest final since Borg-McEnroe in 1980, and he showed he had the heart for the battle (which I think did desert him against Rafa a little further down the line) by recovering from that fourth-set wobble and twice fighting back from 15-40 down on his serve early in the decider. That 6-2 scoreline for the fifth set makes it look relatively comfortable, but it was anything but. Also saw him match Borg's five Wimbledons in a row.

Statistics don't lie but they can be aplied erroneously.  Statistics requires a great deal of data and from it you can extract probabilities after making certain assumptions.   I don't think they are much good when comparing Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - you need to delve deeper.  The same applies to Andy Murray because in terms of slams won he is "nowhere" but he is clearly better than that.

Soul Requiem wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer may end up statistically as 3rd best of the big 3 in the GOAT stakes, but imho he was the only genius of the three. The only one who had a vision of shot-making that made you wonder not only how he pulled off a particular shot, but how he even thought of it in the first place. That's a major reason he became so popular and transcended his sport in the way that Pele, Ali, Messi etc did. Nadal and Djokovic never managed that.

Also, it's more difficult to be the first to do something - once he showed the others that 15+ grand slams and longevity into the late 30s was possible, it helped give them the belief, desire and inspiration to follow suit.

Statistics lie all the time but my eyes rarely do. Federer alongside Sampras are the to players who made me love watching tennis, you never knew what was coming next and the shot selection was at times outrageous in it's complexity and audaciousness. I can appreciate all that Nadal and Djokovic have achieved but did I ever get any real enjoyment seeing them win? Not at all, it was workmanlike rather than joyful.

We can talk about weak eras all we want but the simple fact is that as Federer got older he had Nadal, Djokovic. Murray and Wawrinka to a lesser extent to contend with, as Nadal and Djokovic have got older they've had Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas etc.

Pretty half-arsed take to call Nadal/Djokovic 'workmanlike', I'd maybe say that about a player like Isner or Kevin Anderson but if Rafa and Novak have never once excited you over their careers then tennis probably isn't the sport for you. You can hail Federer's brilliance without denigrating the other two

Soul Requiem wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer may end up statistically as 3rd best of the big 3 in the GOAT stakes, but imho he was the only genius of the three. The only one who had a vision of shot-making that made you wonder not only how he pulled off a particular shot, but how he even thought of it in the first place. That's a major reason he became so popular and transcended his sport in the way that Pele, Ali, Messi etc did. Nadal and Djokovic never managed that.

Also, it's more difficult to be the first to do something - once he showed the others that 15+ grand slams and longevity into the late 30s was possible, it helped give them the belief, desire and inspiration to follow suit.

Statistics lie all the time but my eyes rarely do. Federer alongside Sampras are the to players who made me love watching tennis, you never knew what was coming next and the shot selection was at times outrageous in it's complexity and audaciousness. I can appreciate all that Nadal and Djokovic have achieved but did I ever get any real enjoyment seeing them win? Not at all, it was workmanlike rather than joyful.

We can talk about weak eras all we want but the simple fact is that as Federer got older he had Nadal, Djokovic. Murray and Wawrinka to a lesser extent to contend with, as Nadal and Djokovic have got older they've had Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas etc.

Pretty half-arsed take to call Nadal/Djokovic 'workmanlike', I'd maybe say that about a player like Isner or Kevin Anderson but if Rafa and Novak have never once excited you over their careers then tennis probably isn't the sport for you. You can hail Federer's brilliance without denigrating the other two

88Chris05 wrote:

I noticed the lack of any 2004-07 options in that poll, too. A little odd as you say seeing as those years were the years where he cast his biggest shadow over the rest of the tour.
......

Again, this is just my feeling, but to me that back end of 2004 really seemed to ramp up the perception and expectations of Federer. Everyone knew he was the best in the world, and that he was going to be one of the greats, but even in the first half of the year there was the odd slip up, such as Henman in Rotterdam, a 17-year-old upstart called Nadal in Miami, losing in straight sets to an over the hill Kuerten at Roland Garros etc. He had a brilliant first half of 2004, but it was during those closing months of it (again, from my memory) where the discourse started shifting from him being a great player, to the possibility that we might just be seeing a player the likes of which might never emerge again. It was also after that US Open win when the talk and expectation of him beating Sampras' Slam record really seemed to become commonplace.

On the poll, I agree with others, AO 2017.

I think US Open 2004 - Australian Open 2007 was maybe the peak period of Federer if you go and look up the results although I think 2011-2012 was pretty much as good as well. He has a better backhand then and a more rounded and solid game even if he didn´t quite have the same firepower on the forehand at times, maybe due to courts.

At the Olympics 2004 he was poor and then US Open 2004 it was a whole other level.

Credit to Agassi for taking Federer to 5 at US Open 2004. Everyone else was getting blitzed in straight sets.

A shame Federer happened to have a weak performance against Rafa at the French Open 2005, Rafa was not at his peak yet, and Roger could have won that if he´d played the same level as the rest of the year. He played better clay tennis in 2011 final and didn´t even get to a deciding set.

theslosty wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer may end up statistically as 3rd best of the big 3 in the GOAT stakes, but imho he was the only genius of the three. The only one who had a vision of shot-making that made you wonder not only how he pulled off a particular shot, but how he even thought of it in the first place. That's a major reason he became so popular and transcended his sport in the way that Pele, Ali, Messi etc did. Nadal and Djokovic never managed that.

Also, it's more difficult to be the first to do something - once he showed the others that 15+ grand slams and longevity into the late 30s was possible, it helped give them the belief, desire and inspiration to follow suit.

Statistics lie all the time but my eyes rarely do. Federer alongside Sampras are the to players who made me love watching tennis, you never knew what was coming next and the shot selection was at times outrageous in it's complexity and audaciousness. I can appreciate all that Nadal and Djokovic have achieved but did I ever get any real enjoyment seeing them win? Not at all, it was workmanlike rather than joyful.

We can talk about weak eras all we want but the simple fact is that as Federer got older he had Nadal, Djokovic. Murray and Wawrinka to a lesser extent to contend with, as Nadal and Djokovic have got older they've had Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas etc.

Pretty half-arsed take to call Nadal/Djokovic 'workmanlike', I'd maybe say that about a player like Isner or Kevin Anderson but if Rafa and Novak have never once excited you over their careers then tennis probably isn't the sport for you. You can hail Federer's brilliance without denigrating the other two

Workmanlike isn't denigrating either of them; the pairs greatest asset is fitness rather than flamboyance. Not everyone has to enjoy every top player.

Soul Requiem, you say their greatest asset (nadal and djokovic) is fitness. That is utterly ridiculous, all these players are crazy fit and yes I agree the two you mention are probably far more than most. However, Djokovic for example was and is an absolute freak talent, just look at what the guy was already doing from an early age (teens) as far back as 2007 where in his first grand slam final (US Open 2007) he was dragging Federer around the court and had set points in the first two sets, that final scoreline Federer even admitted to being completely misleading. Djokovic was already causing Fed and Nadal serious problems and beating them even as a teenager. You could argue that Djokovic is the most technically proficient tennis player of the past 30 years, even the top coaches in the game say this is a guy with virtually no weaknesses who can hit winners from anywhere on the court even when defending. You could argue his only weakness is the overhead and even that has improved the past couple of years. His volleying has massively improved in recent years.

I would argue that while you may dislike the guy he can be a very flamboyant player and he brings personality to the court, much more than most. He has been involved in so many of the greatest matches of the past 20 years and if he was not a flamboyant player, nobody would be rating his matches as it takes two to make a match. Yes he can be fiery but so were a lot of the greats of the game, McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, Connors just to name a select few, dont even get me started on the likes of Safin etc.

Nadal I would also argue is a flamboyant player when he has the forehand winners flying left right and centre. I personally find Federer and Djokovics game easier on the eye than Nadal but I do like Rafa as a player, the ultimate competitor.

I'm with you slasher and it's laughable you've been downvoted. Djokovic and Nadal are phenomenally talented and skilled players. Neither of them have been in their athletic prime the last few years but have continued to dominate, it takes a lot more to play tennis like that than just fitness