Is Roger Done?

[herios]

Why should Roger retire just yet, when his generation (1981) is having a blast at the moment on Tour?

 

[El Dude]

His generation is sticking around and remaining relevant, at least in small tournaments, like none for decades. If we use the five-year generations, so far this year Roger's generation (1979-83) has won eight tournaments--one ATP 500 and seven ATP 250s (and possibly another 500 today if Ivo wins). Let's see how previous fared at the same point:

Generation Kuerten (1974-78) in 2011: 1 title, Stepanek winning an ATP 500. This generation would win three more titles in 2012-13, all ATP 250.

Generation Sampras (1969-73) in 2006: 0 titles. Santoro would win two more ATP 250s in 2007-08.

Generation Beckberg (1964-68) in 2001: 1 title. Clavet won a single ATP 250, the last of this generation.

Generation McEnlendl (1959-63) in 1996: I only have info on ATP 500s and above, but the last such title this generation won was Canada Masters in 1993 (Mikael Pernfors).

Generation Borg (1954-58) in 1991: Hard to imagine Borg's generation active in the 90s. I only have info on Masters and above, and the last such title this generation won was all the way back in 1982! That would be equivalent to 2007 for Roger's generation.

Generation Connors (1949-53) in 1986: Jimmy's last big title, a Masters, was in 1984.

Generation Newstase (1944-48) in 1981: Don't know, but this gen hadn't won a big title since 1975.

Generation Ashe (1939-43) in 1976: Actually, Mark Cox won a Masters equivalent.

Generation Lavewall (1934-38) in 1971: Still going strong, with the last big titles being Laver winning two Masters equivalents in 1974. Rosewall won the AO in 1971 and 72, and Gimeno the FO in 1972.

Anyhow, as you can see, I don't have all titles before the 21st century so it become spotty. But it is clear that Roger's generation is showing greater longevity than any generation since, well, Laver and Rosewall (1934-38). Starting in the 70s, with generations born in the late 40s, players started peaking earlier and earlier. Aside from outliers, Federer's generation--with players like Ivo, Lopez, Mayer, Verdasco, Monaco, Kohschreiber, Mahut, Garcia-Lopez, Estrella Burgos, Ferrer, and Roger himself all winning titles within the last two years--is setting standards that I'm guessing will at least continue with Generation Nadalkovic. Rafa and Novak's generation will be the same age in 2021 and, I think, will still be around.

What is interesting to note is that aside from Federer and Ferrer, all the very best of their generation are long gone--Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Safin, Ferrero, Coria, etc. It is lesser players who are sticking around.

 

[herios]

His generation is sticking around and remaining relevant, at least in small tournaments, like none for decades. If we use the five-year generations, so far this year Roger's generation (1979-83) has won eight tournaments--one ATP 500 and seven ATP 250s (and possibly another 500 today if Ivo wins). Let's see how previous fared at the same point:

Generation Kuerten (1974-78) in 2011: 1 title, Stepanek winning an ATP 500. This generation would win three more titles in 2012-13, all ATP 250.

Generation Sampras (1969-73) in 2006: 0 titles. Santoro would win two more ATP 250s in 2007-08.

Generation Beckberg (1964-68) in 2001: 1 title. Clavet won a single ATP 250, the last of this generation.

Generation McEnlendl (1959-63) in 1996: I only have info on ATP 500s and above, but the last such title this generation won was Canada Masters in 1993 (Mikael Pernfors).

Generation Borg (1954-58) in 1991: Hard to imagine Borg's generation active in the 90s. I only have info on Masters and above, and the last such title this generation won was all the way back in 1982! That would be equivalent to 2007 for Roger's generation.

Generation Connors (1949-53) in 1986: Jimmy's last big title, a Masters, was in 1984.

Generation Newstase (1944-48) in 1981: Don't know, but this gen hadn't won a big title since 1975.

Generation Ashe (1939-43) in 1976: Actually, Mark Cox won a Masters equivalent.

Generation Lavewall (1934-38) in 1971: Still going strong, with the last big titles being Laver winning two Masters equivalents in 1974. Rosewall won the AO in 1971 and 72, and Gimeno the FO in 1972.

Anyhow, as you can see, I don't have all titles before the 21st century so it become spotty. But it is clear that Roger's generation is showing greater longevity than any generation since, well, Laver and Rosewall (1934-38). Starting in the 70s, with generations born in the late 40s, players started peaking earlier and earlier. Aside from outliers, Federer's generation--with players like Ivo, Lopez, Mayer, Verdasco, Monaco, Kohschreiber, Mahut, Garcia-Lopez, Estrella Burgos, Ferrer, and Roger himself all winning titles within the last two years--is setting standards that I'm guessing will at least continue with Generation Nadalkovic. Rafa and Novak's generation will be the same age in 2021 and, I think, will still be around.

What is interesting to note is that aside from Federer and Ferrer, all the very best of their generation are long gone--Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Safin, Ferrero, Coria, etc. It is lesser players who are sticking around.

The relevance of the older players plays hand in hand with the lack of young players.
3-4 years ago there were around 30-33% players over 30y in the top 100, now ther are around 40-42%.
What was shocking to me that there were 51 players over 30 in the main draw at RG this year. That went down to 48, still a huge number.
I am now curious what will happen at the USO.

 

[lacatch]

Today's announcement is what I was afraid of when starting this thread. Coming back at 35 1/2, after a 6 month layoff, is going to be VERY difficult. Fingers crossed but we'll see

 

[Front242]

Just read the news on tennis.com Posted on Federer's 2016 schedule thread too I see now but just leaving it here too anyway. Can only hope next year he's able to compete properly :/ Just think though, he made the Wimbledon semis with a bum knee and won a very tough match against Cilic in the quarters so I'm confident if he heals up properly he'll be still a force to be reckoned with next year. Look at Stepanek at 37.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/07/federer-miss-rio-olympics-rest-season-protect-surgically-repaired-knee/59694/#.V5fOs6JLHPY

 

[lacatch]

Front242--I think you make good points. It's just that Novak and Andy will still be in their primes, barring any unforeseen circumstances. And some others like Raonic, Thiem, etc. may start making inroads, further hampering Fed's comeback path.

 

[Busted]

As a long-time Fed fan - I hope Roger's not done, but the dude IS going to be 35 in less than 2 weeks. A knee injury at 35 is vastly different than a knee injury at 25 - unless it's an ACL because that's bad even if you're 2. In the back of his mind he's probably always known that being free of a major injury was going to come to an end sometime and could possibly hasten the end of his career.

The good news is - there's only 4 months left in the season. The bad news is - he's going to lose about 3700 points and finish the year out of the Top 10 for the first time since Oct 2002. He'll have a protected ranking when he comes back of course, but given how many of the younger players are finally starting to make a move? Getting back to #2 or #3 will be a hard row to hoe and damned near impossible. Time hasn't been on Roger's side in quite a while now, but no, I don't think he's done playing. I don't think he'll ever win another Slam - but he'll come back just to frustrate Djokovic and torment Murray some more.

 

[isabelle]

Why should Roger retire just yet, when his generation (1981) is having a blast at the moment on Tour?

because his body is more damaged than expected

 

[Kieran]

I just saw this, it's terrible news for Federer and his fans. Wouldn't wish it on any player, least of all one of the greats... :nono

 

[Front242]

Why should Roger retire just yet, when his generation (1981) is having a blast at the moment on Tour?

because his body is more damaged than expected

He just made the Wimbledon semis with a gammy knee. I'd say that's a pretty good indication he should definitely not retire. There's no reason to believe he can't come back to a high level next year with time off to heal properly. Stepanek has a steel plate in his neck for years and ripped Murray a new ar$eholE at the age of 37 at Roland Garros this year and he's no Roger Federer when it comes to the variety in his game, his shot making skills or his serve. Federer, if healed up properly and able to move like he was even 1 year ago in 2015 will still be an elite player and not long ago was world number 2.

There are tons of players out there with WAY more injuries than Roger has ever had and he's had just 1 surgery his entire career. There is zero reason to retire now and he absolutely loves playing tennis and is not going to retire now just 'cos you hate him. Yeah, his knee is currently not in a good enough condition to play on but the guy lives in Switzerland, home of some of the most advanced medical practices on the planet so pretty sure he'll be back in good nick next year.

 

[Front242]

^ To put things in more perspective, Connors reached the USO semis at the age of 39 and he had nowhere near the game Federer has so there's no reason to believe if Roger recovers well that he can't stay around long enough, if not to win more slams, to annoy the top players by denying them more wins at slams and still occasionally make them look like 2nd rate amateurs on the faster courts like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

 

[lob]

^ To put things in more perspective, Connors reached the USO semis at the age of 39 and he had nowhere near the game Federer has so there's no reason to believe if Roger recovers well that he can't stay around long enough, if not to win more slams, to annoy the top players by denying them more wins at slams and still occasionally make them look like 2nd rate amateurs on the faster courts like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

He would have been way better off taking this break after the 2013 Wimbledon loss to Stakhovsky. But that's hindsight. We'll get another year or two of "the sentimental favorite"..at sw19.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is a brief 538 article on Fed's chances of winning another major . Doesn't say much though. As the article points out there are not many historical analogues to look for guidance.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Godsik says Fed's Knees will be fine again, but does not say whether he re-aggravated them in the fall. uzzled

 

[golds girl]

^ To put things in more perspective, Connors reached the USO semis at the age of 39 and he had nowhere near the game Federer has so there's no reason to believe if Roger recovers well that he can't stay around long enough, if not to win more slams, to annoy the top players by denying them more wins at slams and still occasionally make them look like 2nd rate amateurs on the faster courts like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

Interesting analogy, but isn't the style of tennis nowadays more wearing on the body, regardless of the fact that Fed has more game than Connors?

I just don't want him or Nadal fighting to come back, then losing to scrubs and limping off into the sunset. I want folks to remember them as champions, not maybe spoilers.

 

[Front242]

Too many people imo are making too much out of the possibility of them having some bad losses at the end of their careers. Personally I say so what? Nothing can erase their greatness in their primes and I'll be happy to watch Roger play as long as possible. Losing to some donkey in 2019 won't erase his amazing past achievements. He lost to plenty of donkeys already but still has 17 slam trophies.

 

[Kieran]

^^ I agree. I'd like both Rafa and Roger to play as long as they can. It won't erase the greatness of their peaks...

 

[BratSrbin]

...but he'll come back just to frustrate Djokovic () some more.

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

 

[isabelle]

^ To put things in more perspective, Connors reached the USO semis at the age of 39 and he had nowhere near the game Federer has so there's no reason to believe if Roger recovers well that he can't stay around long enough, if not to win more slams, to annoy the top players by denying them more wins at slams and still occasionally make them look like 2nd rate amateurs on the faster courts like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

Connors had no chronic lower back problem and no knee surgery and he played much less tourneys than today's players

 

[Front242]

^ To put things in more perspective, Connors reached the USO semis at the age of 39 and he had nowhere near the game Federer has so there's no reason to believe if Roger recovers well that he can't stay around long enough, if not to win more slams, to annoy the top players by denying them more wins at slams and still occasionally make them look like 2nd rate amateurs on the faster courts like Dubai, Cincy and Shanghai.

Connors had no chronic lower back problem and no knee surgery and he played much less tourneys than today's players

Federer's is hardly chronic and here's the amount of matches played by Federer to date:

Career record 1080–245

And Connors' Career record 1256–279

Considering Connors won the most tournaments to date by any male player (109) it's clear your statement above is 100% incorrect. So far Connors played 210 more matches than Federer which is basically another 3 seasons worth so again your claim above couldn't be more wrong.