Roger Federer - Is his time coming to and end?

[Richard]

All of us tennis fans know Roger Federer is considered the greatest Tennis player in the history of the game. He's pretty much the Triple H of tennis with an enormous ammount of Grand Slams, maybe even perhaps the Ric Flair of tennis.

He's won Grand Slams for all of the big 4 events, been world number 1 twice, won Olympic doubles gold, he's pretty much done it all in Tennis.

But as good as of a player he was, I honestly think Roger Federer won't ever get the number 1 ranking back and his time as a pro tennis player is coming up within the next couple of years. He's been winning less and less Grand Slams and other guys like Murray, Nadal etc etc are all stepping up their games something chronic and taking tennis by storm.

In the ATP tennis rankings, Roger Federer is actually quite a while away from Rafael Nadal aswell, it would take Roger Federer a few Grand Slam wins and Nadal to have some very early exits for Federer to catch up and take it back, even then, he'd have to hold onto it which I don't think he'd be able to for more than 6 months at the most.

What do you think, WrestleZone? Is Federer's time coming? Could he ever be number 1 again? Other opinions on Roger Federer?

 

[Alastor]

Surely his career is in decline now. But that doesn't mean he will not be a threat in at the majors. Remember the new crop of younger players have only started to better him after years of trying. He was without peers during his dominant run. I highly doubt he can regain number 1 again but he should be able to win a few more majors to add to his 16. Personally I hope reaches at least 20 which means he has to win 4 more before retirement. It is entirely possible because he is still considered one of the top 3 players today even when he is in decline. If he is selective about the tournaments to participate in he can conserve energy for the majors.

 

[Tech N9ne]

His reign of dominance is over. But, he will surely compete in every match he is in, and I guarantee that he wins more tournaments to come.

He will never be what he once was. You can't expect anyone's prime to last forever. He has time left in him, no doubt, and when he decides to retire, he can be confident in himself that he is the best tennis player of All Time.

 

[Burnout]

On your point about Federer being awhile away from Nadal on the rankings, considering that Nadal loses points he won after around a year, unless he retains the title, for example, if he doesn't win the French open this year, he loses points from last year’s win, so if Roger wins, he gets closer, as he gains, Nadal loses. So he'll never be too far off, a couple of ATP 1000 Masters, and one grand slam.

Now, is his reign coming to an end, no. Just because last year he didn't do great in the 3slams after his victory in the Aussie open, doesn't mean he's done. He went into a slump in my opinion after the shock of being out in the Quarters in the French and Wimbledon, that's a huge shock to his system, and by the time he started firing again, he came up against the hottest thing in tennis right now, Novak Djokovic. Murray isn’t a problem outside of smaller tournaments, Federer has him covered for the slams. Murray is a horrible player really, and just lacks the skill of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, Murrays all about flatness and power, which is horrible to watch, and he's the most overrated thing ever if you ever watch him playing under British commentators. Nadal, well niggling injuries from time to time have held him back slightly, so again, there's room for Federer to continue playing at the top of the world. Djokovic is the main threat now, the guy is on fire. He should have won the US open final after his heroics against Fed in the semi, but he got his slam in Australia and he just crushed everyone. Next up, Del Potro, coming back now, the only reason he is a big threat, is his serve. If his skills were weaker outside his serve, yeah you’re looking at the same player as Ivo Karlovic and John Isner. So Del Potro will be a threat because of his serve, as take the US open final 2009, Federer played better, but he just couldn't cope with the constant huge serves. No-one else is really up there in terms of consistently player great. There a couple of guys starting to come through now, but these top 5 I mentioned have the up and comers covered for the time being.

So, Roger Federer, his time is not over, he had a bad year last year, he rarely wins ATP Masters anymore, but he's wining a slam every year, showing his dominance, although less prominent, can still reign over the tennis world.

 

[Alastor]

On your point about Federer being awhile away from Nadal on the rankings, considering that Nadal loses points he won after around a year, unless he retains the title, for example, if he doesn't win the French open this year, he loses points from last year’s win, so if Roger wins, he gets closer, as he gains, Nadal loses. So he'll never be too far off, a couple of ATP 1000 Masters, and one grand slam.

Now, is his reign coming to an end, no. Just because last year he didn't do great in the 3slams after his victory in the Aussie open, doesn't mean he's done. He went into a slump in my opinion after the shock of being out in the Quarters in the French and Wimbledon, that's a huge shock to his system, and by the time he started firing again, he came up against the hottest thing in tennis right now, Novak Djokovic. Murray isn’t a problem outside of smaller tournaments, Federer has him covered for the slams. Murray is a horrible player really, and just lacks the skill of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, Murrays all about flatness and power, which is horrible to watch, and he's the most overrated thing ever if you ever watch him playing under British commentators. Nadal, well niggling injuries from time to time have held him back slightly, so again, there's room for Federer to continue playing at the top of the world. Djokovic is the main threat now, the guy is on fire. He should have won the US open final after his heroics against Fed in the semi, but he got his slam in Australia and he just crushed everyone. Next up, Del Potro, coming back now, the only reason he is a big threat, is his serve. If his skills were weaker outside his serve, yeah you’re looking at the same player as Ivo Karlovic and John Isner. So Del Potro will be a threat because of his serve, as take the US open final 2009, Federer played better, but he just couldn't cope with the constant huge serves. No-one else is really up there in terms of consistently player great. There a couple of guys starting to come through now, but these top 5 I mentioned have the up and comers covered for the time being.

So, Roger Federer, his time is not over, he had a bad year last year, he rarely wins ATP Masters anymore, but he's wining a slam every year, showing his dominance, although less prominent, can still reign over the tennis world.

I don't think anyone will argue that Roger Federer is unable to compete at the top anymore. But he is no longer as dominant as when he was 5 years ago. His reign as the alpha dog of the tennis world is being questioned now because for the first time in a long while he is holding no major titles and was not in the final in the previous 4 slams. Compared with his previous history at the majors, this is a disappointing performance. His results last year would be great for almost any other player except him and Nadal. That is how high the bar has been set for him by his play of previous years. That is why people are asking whether Roger's era is coming to an end.

 

[Miko]

I'd argue that Bjorn Borg could be the greatest ever tennis player, he just retired while he was still young before age caught up with him, denying himself many more wins and lets face it, a few more Wimbledon titles.

Everybody loses eventually, Federer isnt the player he once was, that much is certain, he's still a force to be reckoned with and no one wouldnt take him seriously, but if he came up against Nadal 10 times these days I'd still back Rafa 8 out of those 10. I cant see Fed getting his groove back and dominating like that again, but you never know, and he obviously thinks he can.

Murray isn’t a problem outside of smaller tournaments, Federer has him covered for the slams. Murray is a horrible player really, and just lacks the skill of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, Murrays all about flatness and power, which is horrible to watch, and he's the most overrated thing ever if you ever watch him playing under British commentators.

I agree with all of the above, most overrated tennis player at the moment.

 

[Super Hans]

I don't think anyone will argue that Roger Federer is unable to compete at the top anymore. But he is no longer as dominant as when he was 5 years ago. His reign as the alpha dog of the tennis world is being questioned now because for the first time in a long while he is holding no major titles and was not in the final in the previous 4 slams. Compared with his previous history at the majors, this is a disappointing performance. His results last year would be great for almost any other player except him and Nadal. That is how high the bar has been set for him by his play of previous years. That is why people are asking whether Roger's era is coming to an end.

The reason he is not as dominant as 5 years ago is because in his younger days he never had "that rivalry" that every great had Borg had Mcenroe, Sampras had Aggasi, he had nobody, Tim fucking Henman was world number 3 and A-Rod was considered his greatest threat, hell even a 35 year old Aggasi got to a few slam finals in that period, with the emergance of Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro, while Fed is a little past prime he isnt done, its just that he has some very talented rivals now. You can bet your house that if these 4 players had been around in the early 2000s then he would not have won as much majors as he has, he will still win another few majors, im very confident of that and will probably go down as the greatest ever but not having that rivalry while in his prime will be a major negative in the debate about him being ATG number 1.

 

[Alastor]

The reason he is not as dominant as 5 years ago is because in his younger days he never had "that rivalry" that every great had Borg had Mcenroe, Sampras had Aggasi, he had nobody, Tim fucking Henman was world number 3 and A-Rod was considered his greatest threat, hell even a 35 year old Aggasi got to a few slam finals in that period, with the emergance of Rafa, Nole, Murray and Del Potro, while Fed is a little past prime he isnt done, its just that he has some very talented rivals now. You can bet your house that if these 4 players had been around in the early 2000s then he would not have won as much majors as he has, he will still win another few majors, im very confident of that and will probably go down as the greatest ever but not having that rivalry while in his prime will be a major negative in the debate about him being ATG number 1.

The reason he had nobody was because he was that damn good. There were talented players such as Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin. These players are more or less equals or better than the new crops of players except for Nadal. Federer was so dominant that he had half the battle won before the match due to the opponent's self-doubt. Don't hold it against Federer if the field is not good enough. There is no doubt he elevated the standard of tennis which the current crop of players are competing in.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

The short answer to this question is, YES!

It's the natural course of things, it's not like Federer is going to get BETTER as he gets older. It's not going to happen in tennis.

From the moment you start winning, your time is coming to an end. As has already been stated, talent is increasing, Federer is getting older, injuries are taking their toll, and tennis isn't a sport that lends itself to old age.

This is just a simple fact. It's not to do with Federer as a player or a person. It's simple physical health.

Federer will always be a threat, but I doubt you'll see him string off those major performances like you used to.