Has Roger Federer started the slow decline?

Question

Federer has not won a Grand Slam yet. He was beaten at the Australian by Djokovic. He was humiliated at the French by Nadal. He has only won one or two tournaments of any kind. This kind used to be dominant.

Answer 1

Federer has passed his peak. He's been playing in a time of tennis where there was no challengers for the longest time. Now that there are real players in the game (Nadal and Djokovic) he's lost it. He's not the best player anymore on hard court, Djokovic is now. He hasn't been the best grass player the last two years (Nadal should've won the last two Wimbldons) and he'll never be #1 on clay (Nadal there too). He is on a huge decline and if the US Open draw is as deadly as this one is, he might go slamless this year.

Answer 2

no he has started the period like in all great champions which i call the testing of character time. Federer like sampras had a few dips at this stage of his career but in the end he got back to focus, and like tiger woods.

Answer 3

First off Julian B. I think that your answer is ridiculous.  On what grounds are you saying that Djokovic is a better hard court player now?  Because he beat him in one match when Federer was coming off a bout with mono?  Ridiculous statement.  It's also ridiculous (in my opinion of course!) to say Nadal is better on grass.  Just because he challenged Fed the last two years at Wimbledon doesn't mean he "should" have won.  That's just... I hate to overuse this word... but ridiculous.  It's like saying the Patriots should have beaten the Giants?  Why?  Just because you said so?  (Can you tell that I'm a Federer fan? :-P No offense meant by that paragraph by the way to you Julian, I just don't think it's fair to make those claims.)

Anyways, as much as it pains me to say so, I do believe that Federer has entered the inevitable decline.  It was never a question of if it would happen, just when.  He was so dominant for so long and he may only win one or even zero grand slams this year.  His Wimbledon draw is very difficult with Djokovic in his half and the U.S. Open will be very trying on an older body.  

Getting away from my negativity and possibly moving more towards my optimism which could also be described by Djokovic and Nadal fans like Julian as bias, I'd like to say that I don't think this will be a rapid decline.  Federer is, without a doubt, not on the same level as he has been for the past four - five years, but he is still the best all-around player in the world.  Nadal needs a slow court to win on, Djokovic needs a fast one, Federer can play well on any.  Nadal plays great defense, Djokovic has crushing ground strokes, Federer does both and adds a great net-game to the mix.  

Roger Federer has dominated tennis for so long that a lot of fans have trouble remembering even who was the last male ranked No.1 (Andy Roddick).  The fact that he hasn't won a major yet this year and has one (I believe) only two tournaments is shocking to say the least.  But as I said before, I do not believe that he'll continue in this funk.  At some point, the greatness we've seen for the past half-decade has to break through.  I think the main difference we'll see is that Federer will be unable to sustain said greatness all year, as we've come to expect.  

So to sum up my answer, yes, Roger Federer is indeed on his decline, the Fed-Express's engines are getting overheated, the time of the Swiss dominating a sport is coming to an end, but I believe it will be a far slower decline than most people.  Greatness like what Federer has displayed doesn't go away that fast.  He was still at his highest level at the Masters Series in Shanghai last November, he wiped the floor with none other than Nadal in the final and was hitting some of the most crushing shots I've ever seen him hit.  The Aussie Open was a preview of the future of tennis: Djokovic (Not Nadal, he will only rule clay), Roland Garros was a reminder that despite people like Borg and Sampras continuing to doubt his dominance, Rafael Nadal is as unbeatable on clay as Tiger Woods when leading after 54 holes (Except moreso even), and all the time in between was a reminder that even the greatest can stumble along bumps in the road.  

The rest of the summer and the season will do a lot to show tennis fans the future of their sport.  Is the future Djokovic?  Will he rise up and power through both Fed and Nadal at the All-England Club and carry that momentum through Flushing Meadows and perhaps Beijing as well?  Is the future Nadal?  Will he prove doubters like me wrong and win a major or possibly two off of his favorite surface?  Or perhaps, the future, the next one or two years, will be exactly what we have now, endless talk of who is the greatest of the three, endless talk of if Federer is finally on his career-deathbed and if not, when will he fall into the abyss?  Personally, not only because I'm a Federer fan, but for the sake of the sport, I hope it is the third option.  During the Wimbledon final last year the announcer, I think it was... Ted (Something) or maybe it was John McEnroe said that Federer vs. Nadal was great for the sport, the rivalry was the only thing that came close to equaling things like Yankees-Red Sox or Duke-North Carolina.  Imagine how great it would be if Djokovic continues his climb and there's a three-way rivalry at the top.  It would be outstanding for the sport.

By the way, sorry about going on so long, I'm a sports writer... I tend to do that :-P  Bottom line: Yes, Roger Federer is down... but he's not out.  Not yet...

Answer 4

Ah yes, the long walk home. If he wins Wimbledon, he will silence a lot of his critics, including myself. If he loses Wimbledon, I think it will confirm that he is way past his best and may not even have another grand slam left in him.

In a previous question, I stated that I believed Federer would retire if he lost Wimbledon. Of course that is speculation, I am not Federer's special advisor. And a lot of answerers took issue with that. But Borg essentially retired at 26. Becker and Edberg never won grandslams after 26. It is not unheard of that Federer could end up with only 12 grandslams.

*EDIT*

Tennisfan: OK so Becker won a GS at age 27/28. That was his 6th GS (1996). His 5th was in 1991. So Becker won one GS after age 22. This technicality does not change the essence of my argument.

*EDIT*

Kait: Justine also said she wanted to play for another 5 years, then out of nowhere she retired. She realised that she was no longer in any frame of mind to win grandslams anymore, so for her there was no longer any motivation to play. Because Federer said he wanted to play till 2012, doesn't mean he actually will. He said that when he was dominating tennis. Things are different now. Borg made the same decision Justine made - as soon as it was clear he was no longer winning grandslams, he quit. Mind you, Borg was 1 away from the record at the time. And please don't call Borg a clown. Have a little more respect for the history of the game. I always encourage people to think with their brains rather than their emotions. Kait, if a lot of people are saying that Federer might retire soon, don't you think there is at least some credence to this view? And please read a little earlier in my answer when I said all I could do is speculate. But that speculation is based on history and a little knowledge of human nature. I don't see Federer continuing if he is no longer winning grandslams. Others see Federer playing on and on like Jimmy Connors. I don't. If you're accustomed to living in fire, I don't see how you could survive in smoke.

*EDIT*

Kait: Sampras continued playing because he always felt (and rightly so) that he could keep on winning Wimbledon. Once he realised he could no longer win it, he quit. Even though he won the US Open in 2002, he didn't return to play Wimbledon 2003. My point remains that if Federer can no longer win grandslams, his continuing to play is like dying from Alzheimer's. It will be slow, long, painful and inevitable.

*EDIT*

tennisfan: Since you're in the business of correcting technical errors rather than answering the question, allow me to correct one of yours. If Becker was 17 in July 1985 when he won his first Wimbledon, how could he have been 29 in January 1996?

17 + 11 = duh 28, not 29.

He could have either been 28 or 27 depending on when his birthday fell. Since it's in November, his age was 28 when he won his final grandslam.

Answer 5

The malaria got him off to a bad start. That's probably why he lost to Djokovic in Australia. No excuses at the French: he got his butt kicked and got shoved in a garbage can by Nadal. He is aging and declining, but he's got a little bit more fuel in him to last him about 5 more years. But he sure won't be #1 for a long time starting at the middle of next year! =)

Answer 6

I think that "Dr D" poster got it wrong.

Becker did win the Australian Open in 1996 when he was 28 or 29. So he did win grandslams after 26

Just FYI

Edit: "Dr D" I dont know what the big "essence" or whatever of your post was. All I wanted to say that your claim that Becker did not win a GS after 26 is WRONG.

He did win the Aussie Open when he was 29

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

No!!

Answer 9

He's probably on a plateau just short of starting to decline. He won't catch up to Nadal on clay since Nadal is younger and getting better all the time. Djokovic is also younger and getting better.

Unlike Agassi, who had a long hiatus from tennis and rested his body, Federer has been continuously active for recent years and can't keep his physical skills up for more than a couple of years or so AND the competition is getting stronger, at least concerning Novak and Raffa.

Answer 10

No I don't think so. I just read his win loss record so far this year is about 37-8 and last year it was something like 30-5 so theres no huge differences. Last year he also got upset by Nalbandian and um some big tall guy I can't remember, twice! Coming into Wimbledon last year I am estimating he had 3 titles- Aussie, Dubai, Hamburg. This year he was sick during the Aussie and Dubai, and he got to the final of Hamburg where he lost to Nadal. Sure this year his titles arn't as great, Halle and Estoril, but he won Halle very very convincingly without dropping serve once. So I guess if you look at it statistical wise then no, Federer is doing Ok by his standards. Not magnificent, but not badly either. I think alot more can be said after Wimbledon, because this is his favourite surface and he expects to do well. If he loses in the final however, I do not think that will signal the end either. If he loses earlier, perhaps we should be slightly more concerned. Perhaps.

Dr D- on what do you base your belief Fed will retire? on when other players retired? Well thats is just ridiculous. Just because some clown 20 years ago retired at the age of 27ish does NOT mean Roger will follow his lead. Thats like saying I think Roger will lose Wimbledon because Borg did. Its just stupid, you can't base one person's life on anothers. Just listen to what Roger himself said, that he doesnt wanna retire till at least 2012, that he may play for another 10 years, that he loves tennis, and that although he respected Justine's retirement decision, he couldnt possibly imagine it happening to him! So what the h**l makes you think you know Roger better than he does (yes I sound pretty angry but thats just cos alot of people have been talking this b/s recently)

Dr D - history is bunk, it doesnt mean ****, just because one fella retired, doesnt mean someone else will. Look at the greats who played into their 30s, Sampras included. I don't know why society likes to build people up, put them on a pedastel, hail them as gods, and then loves to see them fall back down to earth. We do it with celebrities, alot of people are doing it with Federer at the mo. Doesnt mean any of their allegations are right, and I'm sure Rog will prove that to you and all his doubters over the next few years.

So Dr D doesnt think Fed can win another Wimbledon?? Right...

Answer 11

naaah, you'll see, he's gonna win wimbledon.... :)

Answer 12

Yes, he has and I'm really glad, because I'm getting tired of his arrogant attitude on court and his comments before and after matches(before, to psych out opponents, and after, because he is so full of himself) - not to mention that s****. jacket he wears when he enters a court at Wimbledon; this is so demeaning to his opponent.  Federer is narcissism personified and a sneaky person. Players like Novak and Nadal will dominate him until the end of his career. Oh, I almost forgot - Roger Federer WILL NOT win another slam until he retires. Fortunately there are players now who have the balls to stand up to him.

Answer 13

Fed already had the prime of his career... he is getting older now and when tennis players are in their late 20s they usually retire. he had his success now it is time for a new group of younger players to win and be highly ranked. I still think Fed has some juice left in him and can win Wimbledon 2008.