Fair Play: Roger Federer's inevitable decline
POOR Roger Federer.
This guy makes the quarterfinals—something 120 others couldn’t in a Grand Slam (plus more counting the qualifiers)—and somebody’s popping the question, “Is it the end of his era?”
To be 28 and at No. 2 in the world and be in his decline?
Poor Roger Federer.
Andy Roddick once said he’d rather have Roger Federer’s worst year than have his best one. And Andy’s best year included a Grand Slam victory.
So is Federer on the decline? Is it true?
Well, in a way, it is.
When you’re the best, you’re always on the decline.
When you’re No. 1, you can either set a new benchmark or slide to No. 2—hence, the decline.
So is Roger Federer near the end of his era?
Yes he is.
The same way that 2005 is near the end of the first decade of this century.
Or the same way that Michael Jordan was on the decline, a year before winning his second three-peat with the Chicago Bulls at 30.
But of course, the Goat on the decline doesn’t mean he isn’t going to go baa in a few more Grand Slam finals.
He will, mind you, for a few years more.
I reckon he’d push his record to 20 Grand Slams and that would be safe until another one comes along, wins 10 before his 22 then at 26, when he loses in all that finals, we’ll all read that he’s on the decline.
Federer with 20 Slams is possible. Unless of course, he’d quit at the top of his game, next year.
Guys like Federer, at their peak, are unbeatable. And when they’re but a shadow of their former selves, they can barely beat the guys in the top 10, while guys outside the top 10 play at their best against them, to make a name for themselves.
But Federer is a winner and he’ll find a way to win.
You don’t believe me?
When Roger Federer had mononucleosis—(Per the New York Times, physicians often discourage those with mononucleosis from taking part in intense physical activity because of the risk of rupturing the spleen)—he made the semis of the Australian Open.
Now, Federer, (has he ever retired from a match?) said, almost as an afterthought, that’s he’s been having back and thigh problems for over a match—and still made the quarterfinals.
That bout of mononucleosis in 2008 started all that talk about Federer’s decline. Of course, we all know what happened after that.
The last guy I followed in tennis also faced all that talks—of his being past his prime when he was 29.
That guy, who was unbeatable at his best, dropped low in the rankings after setting the record for No. 1. He also suffered embarrassing early exits in his favorite event—Wimbledon.
But by god, when everybody else was saying he wasn’t going to win it, he set the record for most major titles in the 2002 US Open, beating youngsters in the early rounds and beating his old rival, the one who had his number in the Grand Slams, in the final.
A year before, he faced that same rival in the quarterfinals and won one of the greatest matches of all time, 6–7(7), 7–6(2), 7–6(2), 7–6(5). Neither lost his serve.
Pete Sampras, when nobody expected he could, set the record in the 2002 US Open at 14 to become the Goat—the Greatest of All Time.
That was before the next Goat came along.
The Greatest of All Time who is on the decline at 29, with 16 slams to his credit.
Boy, are we in for the greatest tennis matches of our time.
This guy makes the quarterfinals—something 120 others couldn’t in a Grand Slam (plus more counting the qualifiers)—and somebody’s popping the question, “Is it the end of his era?”
To be 28 and at No. 2 in the world and be in his decline?
Poor Roger Federer.
Andy Roddick once said he’d rather have Roger Federer’s worst year than have his best one. And Andy’s best year included a Grand Slam victory.
So is Federer on the decline? Is it true?
Well, in a way, it is.
When you’re the best, you’re always on the decline.
When you’re No. 1, you can either set a new benchmark or slide to No. 2—hence, the decline.
So is Roger Federer near the end of his era?
Yes he is.
The same way that 2005 is near the end of the first decade of this century.
Or the same way that Michael Jordan was on the decline, a year before winning his second three-peat with the Chicago Bulls at 30.
But of course, the Goat on the decline doesn’t mean he isn’t going to go baa in a few more Grand Slam finals.
He will, mind you, for a few years more.
I reckon he’d push his record to 20 Grand Slams and that would be safe until another one comes along, wins 10 before his 22 then at 26, when he loses in all that finals, we’ll all read that he’s on the decline.
Federer with 20 Slams is possible. Unless of course, he’d quit at the top of his game, next year.
Guys like Federer, at their peak, are unbeatable. And when they’re but a shadow of their former selves, they can barely beat the guys in the top 10, while guys outside the top 10 play at their best against them, to make a name for themselves.
But Federer is a winner and he’ll find a way to win.
You don’t believe me?
When Roger Federer had mononucleosis—(Per the New York Times, physicians often discourage those with mononucleosis from taking part in intense physical activity because of the risk of rupturing the spleen)—he made the semis of the Australian Open.
Now, Federer, (has he ever retired from a match?) said, almost as an afterthought, that’s he’s been having back and thigh problems for over a match—and still made the quarterfinals.
That bout of mononucleosis in 2008 started all that talk about Federer’s decline. Of course, we all know what happened after that.
The last guy I followed in tennis also faced all that talks—of his being past his prime when he was 29.
That guy, who was unbeatable at his best, dropped low in the rankings after setting the record for No. 1. He also suffered embarrassing early exits in his favorite event—Wimbledon.
But by god, when everybody else was saying he wasn’t going to win it, he set the record for most major titles in the 2002 US Open, beating youngsters in the early rounds and beating his old rival, the one who had his number in the Grand Slams, in the final.
A year before, he faced that same rival in the quarterfinals and won one of the greatest matches of all time, 6–7(7), 7–6(2), 7–6(2), 7–6(5). Neither lost his serve.
Pete Sampras, when nobody expected he could, set the record in the 2002 US Open at 14 to become the Goat—the Greatest of All Time.
That was before the next Goat came along.
The Greatest of All Time who is on the decline at 29, with 16 slams to his credit.
Boy, are we in for the greatest tennis matches of our time.
Comments