[Roger The Great]

Inevitably, the discussion on the decline and fall of Roger Federer will be in full swing here in the coming days and months. Posts will come about how Roger isn't winning as much now due to increased competition, etc. On the other hand the Fedtards will declare that Roger isn't on the decline and that this was just one loss.

Regardless of your thoughts, if you want a glimpse into the future, we should look to the past. What can history teach us about what the coming months and years hold for Fed and the men's game? It seems a lot. The age of 26 seems to be a tipping point in the careers of many. What history do the greats of the game have in their first full calendar year after turning 26? (i.e - if a player turned 26 in September of 1997 these numbers figure from 1998 until career end) It would seem that tennis truly is a young man's game, even for the most talented players in history.

Below I've compiled a list of the greats of the game. To the right I list three stats which show how successful each player was from their first full calendar year after turning 26 to the end of their career. First, the total number of slams won after 26; then the most they won in a calendar year after 26; and finally how many year end #1's after the age of 26. The results are bleak for most...


A. Agassi - 5 GS, 2 per/yr., 1 #1
P. Sampras - 4 GS, 1 per/yr., 1 #1
I. Lendl - 4 GS, 2 per/yr., 1 #1
J. Connors - 3 GS, 2 per/yr., 0 #1
B. Becker - 1 GS, 1 per/yr., 0 #1
S. Edberg - 1 GS, 1 per/yr., 0 #1
G. Vilas - 1 GS, 1 per/yr., 0 #1
B. Borg - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1
J. McEnroe - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1
M. Wilander - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1
J. Courier - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1
P. Rafter - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1
G. Kuerten - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1
Y. Kafelnikov - 0 GS, 0 per/yr., 0 #1


Only four of the game's greats have won more than one grand slam beyond their first calendar year after turning 26. Even the great Sampras never won multiple slams in the same year again. And also see that only three players have finished the year #1 after 26.

No matter if you want Fed to continue dominating or if you're ready for a changing of the guard... the numbers show this year is likely the beginning of an era where Fed is much less a factor.


What do you guys think?

 

[FedFan_2007]

If anyone can win multiple slams at age 27(would happen during US Open), Fed can. He'll have to fix his shitty backhand though. It's not even top 100 quality anymore.

 

[hra87]

Federer should retire. The Mug. Tsonga is 10 times the tennis player he is.

Edit: He'll probably win 1-2 slams or so the next couple years each, then a couple more total the 3 years after that. Probably. I don't know.

Edit2: It's not that big of a deal, it was clear he was declining a bit last year...I mean, did anyone expect him to win like 22 slams or something? He'll pass Sampras by a decent bit...

Edit3: But if Djokovic wins AO then it IS the end of the world.

 

[FedFan_2007]

I only regret not having paid much attention to Fed during his first 18 months of dominance begining in 2003 Wimby. Back then he truly shredded all comers. I became a active fan around May 2005, but I still didn't have a chance to see any of his matches until 2006 Wimby. By then his shredding style had all but finished. It must have been exciting for those who saw his 2004 TMC performance with double bagel of Gauido and so on.

 

[kobulingam]

Give me a break. Fed didn't come into this tournament in good form. Look how good he played at TMC last year (aftter Gonzo loss). That level would have won the AO.

 

[Roger The Great]

Give me a break. Fed didn't come into this tournament in good form. Look how good he played at TMC last year (aftter Gonzo loss). That level would have won the AO.

Think it ridiculous if you want. I'm not really trying to draw conclusions, I'm just laying the info out there. But regardless of what could have happened at this tournament, history shows that Fed's era of utter dominance is likely ending. Certainly he could buck the trend, but history is against him.

 

[Dimonator133]

Think it ridiculous if you want. I'm not really trying to draw conclusions, I'm just laying the info out there. But regardless of what could have happened at this tournament, history shows that Fed's era of utter dominance is likely ending. Certainly he could buck the trend, but history is against him.

i'm not even a Fed fan and I still understand that past history does not apply to the best ever

consider the stats disregarded

 

[azza]

Philippoussis played at his peak when he was 26