Federer Already Passed His Peak?!?!? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer Already Passed His Peak?!?!?

nolop
05-10-2007, 05:46 PM
he just cant go on with his previous form, is a really exhausting kind of game, i really believe he will have ups and down in his career but mostly he will go down, he wont win rg, not with this form, he needs to regroup himself really bad, now players are figure it out how to beat him, i wont be shocked if some top players pull a lil willy to win against fed

what ya think?:cool:

Carlita
05-10-2007, 05:47 PM
:yawn: :yawn: :yawn:....:zzz:

Bilbo
05-10-2007, 05:48 PM
yes and i said it weeks ago. who doesn't see that must be either blind or fooled.

El Legenda
05-10-2007, 05:51 PM
this thread should be fun when Roger wins Wimbledon without dropping a set and does the same at USO, giving him 3 GS in a year....again.

Burrow
05-10-2007, 05:52 PM
Fair question, I reckon that he still has several grandslams to win, only last year he had his best season in terms of wins yes? He will come back stronger next year, with added motivation although I think he wil have a great us hardcourt season.

Roger The Great
05-10-2007, 06:21 PM
It's not really all that shocking if his peak years are behind him. There is definitely a precedent.

Sampras never won multiple slams in the same year after the age of 25.

McEnroe won his final slam at the age of 25, I believe.

Wilander won his last slam at 24.

Borg won his last slam at 24 or 25.

And I'm sure there are other examples but these are plenty. The fact is that these were all dominant players and they all had their peak success at or before Roger's age. I know it's shocking based on his last few years, but it can happen. :shrug:

RonE
05-10-2007, 06:26 PM
Just Cause never rests does he?

CmonAussie
05-10-2007, 06:27 PM
It's not really all that shocking if his peak years are behind him. There is definitely a precedent.

Sampras never won multiple slams in the same year after the age of 25.

McEnroe won his final slam at the age of 25, I believe.

Wilander won his last slam at 24.

Borg won his last slam at 24 or 25.

And I'm sure there are other examples but these are plenty. The fact is that these were all dominant players and they all had their peak success at or before Roger's age. I know it's shocking based on his last few years, but it can happen. :shrug:


Exactly;)
~~ With tennis we can`t assume anything!!!!.. A lot of dominant #1 players dramatically dropped their leval in their mid 20s:eek:


Basically I can see FED still winning 4-5 tourneys per year [not 11-12 anymore], but as long as he wins the important ones then that should be enough to go down as the greatest:cool:

Anyway the remainder of 2007 should give us a few clues...

neme6
05-10-2007, 06:30 PM
regardless of his results these last few months, he is still the heavy favourite to win Wimbledon, and a treat at Fo, he needs to regroup to have a shot at this one though, but he has a shot, the only thing that Roger showed us over his last few defeats is that is real nemesis isn't Nadal but himself!

FluffyYellowBall
05-10-2007, 06:38 PM
nooo...people stop saying this stuff!!!!

nolop
05-10-2007, 06:48 PM
im not saying he wont win wimbledon or something else anymore, but you have to reckon that 06 fed is not coming back this year and will probably not comeback ever:shrug:

Allez
05-10-2007, 06:58 PM
Unfortunately it sure looks that way. Seems like 25 is the age after which everything starts to sag a little. He'll never have another 2006 that's for sure. Next year he'll be 27. That is simply too old. If you add the inevitable slow movement factor on top of his current problems then you have a recipe for a shockingly rapid decline. So much of what makes Rogi great is his footwork and general movement around the court. With age, that goes and so will the titles etc.

The_Nadal_effect
05-10-2007, 07:01 PM
It's not really all that shocking if his peak years are behind him. There is definitely a precedent.

Sampras never won multiple slams in the same year after the age of 25.

McEnroe won his final slam at the age of 25, I believe.

Wilander won his last slam at 24.

Borg won his last slam at 24 or 25.

And I'm sure there are other examples but these are plenty. The fact is that these were all dominant players and they all had their peak success at or before Roger's age. I know it's shocking based on his last few years, but it can happen. :shrug:

Thanks for the statistics, RTG! Like me, you also seem to be an analytical fan. I am quite happy to see that you examine Roger critically even though you like him. I do the same with Rafael.

But I feel its all too soon to wrap him off! Roger clearly has only half achieved what he is capable of. This so called 'slump', I believe, in all studious athletes is only a withdrawal from their outer game so that they may examine themselves more critically and sincerely.
What I mean is, even if on the outside, Roger doesn't appear to succeed or performs poorly, he is actually learning and re-adapting himself to excel even further. So relax.

Sunset of Age
05-10-2007, 07:02 PM
Come on, people!!!

Rogi had an exceptional past three years, but a slight decline (which was to be expected anyways) doesn't mean he's completely done now.
Let's at least stay reasonable, m'kay? ;)

nolop
05-10-2007, 07:03 PM
no one is saying he is doneeeeeeeee!!!!!! :shout:

federerfan7465
05-10-2007, 07:03 PM
less pressure for Roland Garros- he finally has something to prove at a Major instead of being the odds on favorite... this is working out perfectly for Fed.

97% of the matches he plays- its the biggest match of his opponents life... if his opponent wins... its the biggest win of his career... Volandri was in front of his home fans, Federer played horrible.... and now he needs to have a solid Hamburg and make history at RG.

Allez
05-10-2007, 07:05 PM
.... and now he needs to have a solid Hamburg and make history at RG.

If we all visualise this perhaps it will come true

Jimnik
05-10-2007, 07:06 PM
He should have retired after the AO.

rafa_maniac
05-10-2007, 07:07 PM
Didn't Roger predict exactly three years before his slump started that in three years time Rafa would take his place as #1? Maybe it's voodoo.

aramis
05-10-2007, 07:07 PM
I think maybe Fed is just tired of going all out in the lesser events, which include Masters events from his perspective. I'm sure he will be all business for the slams, though. That's all that matters at this point. In terms of win/loss ratio for the year, I'm sure that he will never do better than the last two years, but that doesn't mean he isn't the best player anymore. He will still show up in top form for the majors. Like someone else said, he will still more than likely win Wimby and the USO with ease, thus giving him 3 majors for the year again. Even though Rafa may end with the better win/loss ratio for the year, it means nothing compared to winning majors.

Roger The Great
05-10-2007, 07:10 PM
I'm not sure about the others, but I'm not suggesting Roger is definitely on his way down and won't ever have great success again. I just think people need to be realistic and realize that it is possible Roger's best is behind him. I'm hoping this is just a seasonal slump for him, though!

r2473
05-10-2007, 07:51 PM
Let's at least stay reasonable, m'kay? ;)

Are you sure you're in the right place or is this your first visit?

r2473
05-10-2007, 07:53 PM
He should have retired after the AO.

I hear Tiger won't return his calls anymore. Says Roger is a loser and denies that they were ever friends.

Also, an unnamed player who was in the bathroom after Roger made the (unsubstantiated) claim that his shit does stink (a little).

FluffyYellowBall
05-10-2007, 08:01 PM
im not saying he wont win wimbledon or something else anymore, but you have to reckon that 06 fed is not coming back this year and will probably not comeback ever:shrug:


Youe polluted GM enough with ur stupid ass thread.. What the hell r u saying??!?!!

He lost 3 matches...Nadal went through a horrible patch and it was worse than feds.

CyBorg
05-10-2007, 08:27 PM
We'll see at Wimbledon. Unless of course Federer pulls it out at the French.

It's possible. If he can find his serve he can win in tiebreaks.

MisterQ
05-10-2007, 08:27 PM
Federer's past few years have been so extraordinary, it's quite possible they were his peak. He might come down to winning only two slams a year now... :lol:

Merton
05-10-2007, 08:35 PM
Sure, if after every loss you say "player X has passed his peak", eventually one of these calls will turn out to be correct. Even if Roger loses early at RG we cannot really make that call. If he fails to defend Wimbledon, then we get a much stronger signal.

jenanun
05-10-2007, 08:41 PM
yes maybe he passed his peak, he may loose more matches in a year than he did in the last 2-3 years,

but i think he is still good enough to win at least another 4-5 slams..... good enough to maintain the world no.1......... (though i do sincerely hope rafa can take this chance to close the gap and give a shot...)

ASP0315
05-10-2007, 09:24 PM
not yet until he loses at wimbledon he will be still tough to beat. 'top 10' players like djvokovic, gonzalez, Roddick aren't able to defeat him.(Nadal is the only top ten player who is beating him and rest of them are not.) He may not do well in French and might lose in early rounds but keep in ming Roger is playing on his worst surface but when grass season comes he will forget about it.( Playing complained about tough draw that federer got at wimby last year. But guess what happened? :lol: )

Volandri is tough match up for roger. he is good on clay plus he is playing on his home soil. Considering that you can't expect a cakewalk for Federer.

Bruno71
05-10-2007, 09:44 PM
Last year by the end of RG he'd lost 4 matches (all to Nadal) and then only lost one more the rest of the way. He's lost 4 matches so far this year...I suppose we can assume it'll be 5 after RG (or 6 if he plays Hamburg too) if he keeps playing this way...then let's see what happens.

Jim Courier
05-10-2007, 09:46 PM
It's just a slump, at worst it will get better after clay. Why would he already be done, he's a late bloomer and his game isn't too exhausting.
This is Federer we're talking about a few defeats aren't the end of the world.

Halba
05-10-2007, 10:09 PM
Youe polluted GM enough with ur stupid ass thread.. What the hell r u saying??!?!!

He lost 3 matches...Nadal went through a horrible patch and it was worse than feds.

but on clay.....:cool: >?

fed SUCKS on clay, i mean there are atleast a few guys that can beat him(volandri, gasgay, nadal, canas perhaps a few more)

Frooty_Bazooty
05-10-2007, 11:24 PM
but on clay.....:cool: >?

fed SUCKS on clay, i mean there are atleast a few guys that can beat him(volandri, gasgay, nadal, canas perhaps a few more)

how does winning hamburg three times, reaching the RG final and semi final, as well as monte carlo final twice and rome final twice make him suck on clay? :rolleyes:

sykotique
05-10-2007, 11:31 PM
how does winning hamburg three times, reaching the RG final and semi final, as well as monte carlo final twice and rome final twice make him suck on clay? :rolleyes:

Nowadays, if you're not named Nadal, you suck on clay.

Halba
05-10-2007, 11:43 PM
how does winning hamburg three times, reaching the RG final and semi final, as well as monte carlo final twice and rome final twice make him suck on clay? :rolleyes:

relative to other courts where he is got like almost :rolleyes:

nolop
05-10-2007, 11:46 PM
how does winning hamburg three times, reaching the RG final and semi final, as well as monte carlo final twice and rome final twice make him suck on clay? :rolleyes:

by his standards he sucks on clay :rolleyes:

switz
05-11-2007, 12:53 AM
Losing is good for Roger in my opinion because it will knock him down a few pegs and make him spend more time on the court and less time doing photoshoots for Vogue and doing interviews about his relationship with Tiger Woods etc.

I say that as someone who has probably been a fan of Roger longer than almost anyone (ie before he had even done anything of note in juniors).

The suggestion that he is past his peak is ridiculous though. He has won the last 3 grand slams played and made the final of the last clay court masters series event. His game requires a lot less effort than the vast majority of players so don't get that suggestion either. Anyway the same things were said this time last year and looked what happened after Roland Garros. People are have very short memories it would seem.

switz
05-11-2007, 12:55 AM
but on clay.....:cool: >?

fed SUCKS on clay, i mean there are atleast a few guys that can beat him(volandri, gasgay, nadal, canas perhaps a few more)

Pete Sampras was probably 50% the player Roger is on clay and yet he is still called the greatest player of all time :rolleyes:

Jlee
05-11-2007, 01:36 AM
I think this will be a good discussion to have if he fails to win Wimbledon. He had two freaky losses to Canas and now he's lost on clay in his opponent's home country...:shrug: I think he'll still win at least 3 slams this year.

I feel like Roger is going to be around for a while. Maybe not at his peak, but his game is different from Nadal's. Unless Rafa makes major changes to his game, he probably won't be winning grand slams after he turns 25 or 26. Roger has a great style of game to be around for a while. Even if he isn't peaking, he'll still probably win at least Wimbledon every year until he's 30.

Pea
05-11-2007, 01:38 AM
Rogi will win RG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kolya
05-11-2007, 02:05 AM
Maybe his dominance is now over...

Lillith
05-11-2007, 02:27 AM
Losing is good for Roger in my opinion because it will knock him down a few pegs and make him spend more time on the court and less time doing photoshoots for Vogue and doing interviews about his relationship with Tiger Woods etc.

I say that as someone who has probably been a fan of Roger longer than almost anyone (ie before he had even done anything of note in juniors).

The suggestion that he is past his peak is ridiculous though. He has won the last 3 grand slams played and made the final of the last clay court masters series event. His game requires a lot less effort than the vast majority of players so don't get that suggestion either. Anyway the same things were said this time last year and looked what happened after Roland Garros. People are have very short memories it would seem.


I agree. As a fan of his myself, I have been (only a little) happy to see him eat humble pie for a change. I think he now (and Nadal up to Wimbledon last year) has actually been taken in by the hype, the GOAT talk, the celebrity BS, etc. It's time for him to decide to focus his game again, or else be happy with mediocrity on the court. Nadal was taken down a notch, and has come back better than ever. I hope Federer can as well.

Forehander
05-11-2007, 03:24 AM
im not worrying about RG anymore. Im just worried about his upcoming grass titles in the upcoming months :(

Allez
05-11-2007, 05:25 AM
im not worrying about RG anymore. Im just worried about his upcoming grass titles in the upcoming months :(

Ditto & his performances @ IW and Miami do not bode well for the American summer hard court season. If he fails there then e will lose his no.1 ranking for sure.:sad:

Action Jackson
05-11-2007, 05:32 AM
If he fails to win Wimbledon, then there might be a stronger case, now it's just an overreaction.

Federer should have retired already, he is a has been. There are people who always think domination is going to last forever. Better off losing in these events and winning Slams.

Merton
05-11-2007, 05:43 AM
If he fails to win Wimbledon, then there might be a stronger case, now it's just an overreaction.

Federer should have retired already, he is a has been. There are people who always think domination is going to last forever. Better off losing in these events and winning Slams.

It would be hilarious if Roger wins bandwagon player of the month in July. It is not too far fetched, if he loses in Hamburg and before the final at RG people will write him off as a has been, destroyed by Mirka, lazy, hiding injuries, keeping Roche too long and so on. If he then wins Wimbledon he will be the tennis messiah, the undisputed GOAT and so on.

Action Jackson
05-11-2007, 05:44 AM
It would be hilarious if Roger wins bandwagon player of the month in July. It is not too far fetched, if he loses in Hamburg and before the final at RG people will write him off as a has been, destroyed by Mirka, lazy, hiding injuries, keeping Roche too long and so on. If he then wins Wimbledon he will be the tennis messiah, the undisputed GOAT and so on.

That would be ridiculous if he won it. but it's likely given this place.

Allez
05-11-2007, 06:08 AM
It would be hilarious if Roger wins bandwagon player of the month in July. It is not too far fetched, if he loses in Hamburg and before the final at RG people will write him off as a has been, destroyed by Mirka, lazy, hiding injuries, keeping Roche too long and so on. If he then wins Wimbledon he will be the tennis messiah, the undisputed GOAT and so on.

Are you suggesting that Wimbledon is worth more than Roland Garros, IW, Miami, MC, Roma, Hamburg, Halle put together ? IMO he'll have to do a lot more than just win Wimbledon to restore his reputation. He has yet to win a TMS tourney this season. On top of Wimbledon he'll have to win Cincy, Toronto, US Open, Madrid, Paris and Shanghai before people can even start thinking of crowning him the "messiah". A single tournament just doesn't cut it.

Action Jackson
05-11-2007, 06:12 AM
Are you suggesting that Wimbledon is worth more than Roland Garros, IW, Miami, MC, Roma, Hamburg, Halle put together ? IMO he'll have to do a lot more than just win Wimbledon to restore his reputation. He has yet to win a TMS tourney this season. On top of Wimbledon he'll have to win Cincy, Toronto, US Open, Madrid, Paris and Shanghai before people can even start thinking of crowning him the "messiah". A single tournament just doesn't cut it.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Merton
05-11-2007, 06:17 AM
Are you suggesting that Wimbledon is worth more than Roland Garros, IW, Miami, MC, Roma, Hamburg, Halle put together ? IMO he'll have to do a lot more than just win Wimbledon to restore his reputation. He has yet to win a TMS tourney this season. On top of Wimbledon he'll have to win Cincy, Toronto, US Open, Madrid, Paris and Shanghai before people can even start thinking of crowning him the "messiah". A single tournament just doesn't cut it.

Yes, and after doing all that, he will next part the seas using his racquet and drive away in the sunset.

Allez
05-11-2007, 06:26 AM
Yes, and after doing all that, he will next part the seas using his racquet and drive away in the sunset.

You are correct. Winning the golden grand slam in 2008 would be comparable to parting seas with his racquet. Since he would have beaten Sampras' record he would then be free to "drive away in the sunset".;) Very good :yeah::rolleyes:

Allez
05-11-2007, 06:29 AM
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

I just know you're being sarcastic there GWH ;)

supertommyhaas
05-11-2007, 11:31 AM
no he is not. He is just having a rough patch. He will be back after the clay season once he wins uso, wimby, madrid and toronto. Maybe even paris or cinci. He will probably win Shangai to. Dont worry he will be back to his brilliant best.

Rogiman
05-11-2007, 12:29 PM
He's passed his peak.

He may still play good tennis (not right now, anyway), but will never reach the heights of 2004-6 again.

jazar
05-11-2007, 12:37 PM
if he fails to win a tournament for the next 3 years then maybe he will be passed his peak, but when the guy is ranked #1 in the world he cannot have passed his peaked

Nathaliia
05-11-2007, 12:38 PM
He will be back like Serena Williams.

VolandriFan
05-11-2007, 12:41 PM
I do think this could be the start of a slight decline in form. It won't be anything major, but I don't think he'll be the invincible figure he once was. Of course, we could be completely off and he could be back winning everything after RG.

scarecrows
05-11-2007, 12:43 PM
please retire Federer, you are useless, all that you won was pure luck :D

Medina
05-11-2007, 01:17 PM
...with a bangin' booty and large hoop earrings? :eek:



Lol :D, and maybe start grunting even louder!

Nathaliia
05-11-2007, 01:24 PM
...with a bangin' booty and large hoop earrings? :eek:

Yes, and with some annoying fans in case he doesn't have enough of 'em.

VolandriFan
05-11-2007, 01:26 PM
Lol :D, and maybe start grunting even louder!

Federer grunting loudly :scared:

sykotique
05-11-2007, 02:02 PM
Are you suggesting that Wimbledon is worth more than Roland Garros, IW, Miami, MC, Roma, Hamburg, Halle put together ? IMO he'll have to do a lot more than just win Wimbledon to restore his reputation. He has yet to win a TMS tourney this season. On top of Wimbledon he'll have to win Cincy, Toronto, US Open, Madrid, Paris and Shanghai before people can even start thinking of crowning him the "messiah". A single tournament just doesn't cut it.

Umm, I suppose equalling Bjorn Borg's consecutive Wimbledon streak will really fly under the radar. People will hardly bat an eyelid.

Roger is ripe for the taking. Oscar Hernandez is surely smelling blood in the water and must be licking his chops.

Just Cause
05-11-2007, 02:43 PM
if he fails to win a tournament for the next 3 years then maybe he will be passed his peak, but when the guy is ranked #1 in the world he cannot have passed his peaked

Look @ the point total~~

bokehlicious
05-11-2007, 02:49 PM
Look @ the point total~~

:confused: quit smoking crack !

oz_boz
05-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Is it just me or has he lost some of his footwork? Could contribute to the timing issues he has had of late. The loss in MC is the only one he should have had with his form of 2006, which of course couldn't go on forever.

I think we will have a new #1 after USO, even if it's way too early to tell.

€Stah
05-11-2007, 02:59 PM
No. He has to win the Grand Slam, then he'll have passed his peak.

foolish pleasure
05-11-2007, 03:41 PM
It's not really all that shocking if his peak years are behind him. There is definitely a precedent.

Sampras never won multiple slams in the same year after the age of 25.

McEnroe won his final slam at the age of 25, I believe.

Wilander won his last slam at 24.

Borg won his last slam at 24 or 25.

And I'm sure there are other examples but these are plenty. The fact is that these were all dominant players and they all had their peak success at or before Roger's age. I know it's shocking based on his last few years, but it can happen. :shrug:

umm, well, see, as far as borg and wilander are concerned...weren't they they retired by 25? seems like it would have been pretty hard for them to win anything after that doesn't it?

as for pete, i haven't checked your assertion because i'm not anal, but assuming it is true, it is disingenuous of you to to imply that pete wasn't the best player, the most feared, and the most dominant up until his loss to marat in the us open final at the age of 27 (?)--that loss did something to pete, that he never really recovered from--but unlike roger's recent losses, marat played insanely well and pete was playing awesome too but just had no answer. so he never really recovered from it, plus he was burnt out...but even so, pete went on to win more slams.

as for mac, i think even he would admit he is no roger federer, and probablly no pete sampras as well.

this year roger lost to canas 2x early, nadal once (in a final), and then volandri early. the first loss to canas and the loss to volandri were both matches where he was clearly not in the game mentally. and losing to nadal on clay is sort of par for the course right?

i think it is possible that his personal life and celebrity engagements may be imposing on his game right now; he may also be a little burnt out too...but that doesn't mean he won't step up for the big ones still.

last year was probably his best chance to win a true grand slam because in this day and age it is just too hard to even get the chance, the field is just too deep (when mcenroe and borg played, the first week was a joke competition-wise).

but i do think that, unless he gets injured, he will win the french at least once, maybe very late, in his career. i also believe that even if he retired today, his place in tennis will be higher than nadal's, even if nadal continues to dominate for years, because nadal's best tennis isn't awe-inspiring, it's just damn good and very effective. roger's best tennis leaves people--people who are themselves no slouches tennis-wise--speechless and enthralled. his best game is a thing of perfection.

anyway, i remember how shocking and sad it was when mats just walked away--i can imagine it was even worse when borg did. if you really love tennis, you will quit trying to rush roger off the stage.

ps: the biggest difference between roger and those others is that unlike them, roger had a shakier start in his climb to number one--he knows how to recover from losing. if anyone is endanger to crashing out at 25 is the wonderkind nadal.

r2473
05-11-2007, 06:34 PM
umm, well, see, as far as borg and wilander are concerned...weren't they they retired by 25? seems like it would have been pretty hard for them to win anything after that doesn't it?

as for pete, i haven't checked your assertion because i'm not anal, but assuming it is true, it is disingenuous of you to to imply that pete wasn't the best player, the most feared, and the most dominant up until his loss to marat in the us open final at the age of 27 (?)--that loss did something to pete, that he never really recovered from--but unlike roger's recent losses, marat played insanely well and pete was playing awesome too but just had no answer. so he never really recovered from it, plus he was burnt out...but even so, pete went on to win more slams.

as for mac, i think even he would admit he is no roger federer, and probablly no pete sampras as well.

this year roger lost to canas 2x early, nadal once (in a final), and then volandri early. the first loss to canas and the loss to volandri were both matches where he was clearly not in the game mentally. and losing to nadal on clay is sort of par for the course right?

i think it is possible that his personal life and celebrity engagements may be imposing on his game right now; he may also be a little burnt out too...but that doesn't mean he won't step up for the big ones still.

last year was probably his best chance to win a true grand slam because in this day and age it is just too hard to even get the chance, the field is just too deep (when mcenroe and borg played, the first week was a joke competition-wise).

but i do think that, unless he gets injured, he will win the french at least once, maybe very late, in his career. i also believe that even if he retired today, his place in tennis will be higher than nadal's, even if nadal continues to dominate for years, because nadal's best tennis isn't awe-inspiring, it's just damn good and very effective. roger's best tennis leaves people--people who are themselves no slouches tennis-wise--speechless and enthralled. his best game is a thing of perfection.

anyway, i remember how shocking and sad it was when mats just walked away--i can imagine it was even worse when borg did. if you really love tennis, you will quit trying to rush roger off the stage.

ps: the biggest difference between roger and those others is that unlike them, roger had a shakier start in his climb to number one--he knows how to recover from losing. if anyone is endanger to crashing out at 25 is the wonderkind nadal.

This guy needs to be banned!!!

His post is well thought out and makes sense. (Not saying I am in total agreement).

There is no room for a guy like this on MTF.

nsidhan
05-11-2007, 07:07 PM
In 2005...Roger Federer had a FANTASTIC year. He had to wait until Wimbledon in July to win his first Grand Slam. And that was already past the 1/2 year mark. Rog needs to re-group and build his own confidence right now before RG'07. He had some lucky wins in the past. All those wins are coming back to haunt him now. Being a Roger fan, I rather he get all his losses out of the way before RG'07. If Roger loses every ATP Master tournament this year but still wins the calendar GS, will people still question his greatness?

The_Nadal_effect
05-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Is it just me or has he lost some of his footwork?

I think we will have a new #1 after USO, even if it's way too early to tell.

Not so soon, doc!

Roger will clearly stay ahead of everyone else, including Nadal, through this year. Although I am more fond of Rafa, I dont think he is in par with Fed as yet, and the others are way down. So enjoy the Fed-domination as it will carry on for another good long year :yeah:.

LK_22
05-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Oh dear me......

It'll be amazing what people will say in a month's time when the grass court season is in swing

Sunset of Age
05-11-2007, 07:37 PM
Not so soon, doc!

Roger will clearly stay ahead of everyone else, including Nadal, through this year. Although I am more fond of Rafa, I dont think he is in par with Fed as yet, and the others are way down. So enjoy the Fed-domination as it will carry on for another good long year :yeah:.

Are you jinxing poor Roger 'Autocombustion' Federer now, T_N_E? :lol:

Hope you're right, though. In contrary to Rogi, Raf has the time on his side, his time will come anyway.

Fedex
05-11-2007, 07:54 PM
Until someone beats Federer at Wimbledon or the Open, I'm holding back on pronoucing him done.

Action Jackson
05-13-2007, 08:17 AM
I just know you're being sarcastic there GWH ;)

Not at all.

Forehander
05-13-2007, 08:40 AM
Roger will bounce back up . I dunno I just have strongly believe in his ability. He's too talented to fall already.

explicit
05-13-2007, 08:52 AM
Maybe he'll have a few bad losses (like this one to Volandri) from time to time in the future, but I still think that he will manage to come back and win more then 4 GS in the next couple of years, probably including RG.