[Johnny Groove]

Roger just turned 39. He will return at age 39y5m. Tilden won a slam at age 42y7m. So I need no reason why Federer cannot be at least a threat to win a slam or at the very least, put on a few key vintage performances here and there to stop Rafole from select records for the next 3 years

Roger will still be a threat for another 3 years, don't know why people think he is finished, especially his fans, who seem to be already on the 3rd stage of grief, instead of rooting for a comeback

 

[Tennis9000+]

I've never thought he's done winning Slams or Masters. I expect him to play until 2024 at the very least and I'm sure he'll be able to win at least one more Slam, probably next year's Wimbledon. I believe he'll end up with 22 Slams and 30+ Masters.

 

[Djoker]

Maybe Federer won't be a Tilden or Rosewall... his recent struggles at USO in form of 5 setters against players he should beat even in his sleep somehow signify that.
Federer may put a vintage performance here or there, but he won't stop Rafole anymore... his win vs Nadal last year could be his last ever against Rafole in slams.

Be realistic at once, although Federer could just defy the odds as he has done it, but it wasn't beyond 38, and there are too many variables in this story and his moving skills and match sharpness should be which will tell you in the coming 12 months whether it has any relevance or it's sheer impossible. I tend to predict the latter.

 

[bhdtl]

Are you really comparing tennis from 100 years ago to right now? Anyway, I don't think Federer will play that long because I don't think he will be able to play knowing his records are gone. His slam and weeks records will be gone in 2021. He will just retire instead.

 

[SetPointDown]

He has been constantly injured since last years wimbledon final.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

Comparing Tilden who played like a 100 years ago to Federer......... that’s like some shit you’ll see Unbiased do lol. Nonetheless, Federer can still win a few more masters and maybe another Wimby but that’s about as much as I can see him winning if even that.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Are you really comparing tennis from 100 years ago to right now? Anyway, I don't think Federer will play that long because I don't think he will be able to play knowing his records are gone. His slam and weeks records will be gone in 2021. He will just retire instead.

Fed can still do a Wimbledon fairy tale run in 2021 at the very least

Plus, he does not even have to win a slam. Simply beating Djokovic or Nadal here and there to protect his records will be enough. Like Wimbledon 19 SF vs Nadal or WTF RR3 vs Nole 2019. So even if he did not win a slam in '19, he still kept his slam and WTF records. Now this year it is out of his hands. But I don't think he's just gonna let his legacy go without a fight. If he does, well, then he was never the GOAT to begin with

 

[swissmaestro92]

i think he can be happy with his career, but id like to see him play for as long as he is able to

 

[Johnny Groove]

Comparing Tilden who played like a 100 years ago to Federer......... that’s like some shit you’ll see Unbiased do lol. Nonetheless, Federer can still win a few more masters and maybe another Wimby but that’s about as much as I can see him winning if even that.

Only 85 years

Arthur Gore also made a Wimbledon finals at age 44y6m, so there is still time for Roger. Even if he cannot win another slam, he can still block. At least until Thiem and the rest can rise

 

[doubletrollt]

Fed can still do a Wimbledon fairy tale run in 2021 at the very least

Plus, he does not even have to win a slam. Simply beating Djokovic or Nadal here and there to protect his records will be enough. ...

Maybe even losing to them would suffice e.g. taking them into the fifth set in QF or SF and making them tired for SF and F vs fresher and younger guns.

 

[laughingcavalier]

Only 85 years

Arthur Gore also made a Wimbledon finals at age 44y6m, so there is still time for Roger. Even if he cannot win another slam, he can still block. At least until Thiem and the rest can rise

Hahahaha ... Now you're really taking the piss and going back even furrrrrther

... In those days mate they just stood there and gently hit a ball over the net with a wooden racquet.No body wear & tear and torque and all that crap.No shit you can make a final at 44 years when you do that.

... However,I do agree with your premise.A 38 year old old almost beat a player like Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.That's significant.Keep playing while you can.Hang up the boots when you're walking off the court 2,2 &2 in the scoreline and no longer competitive.

 

[BodyServe]

I think we shouldn't really laugh at records from the past regarding age, how much has life expectancy been improved since then? How much is modern medicine and far lighter rackets helping the players? How much easier is it to play tennis now?

Federer performances at W 2019 and AO 2020 during the first set of the SF (while not being 100%) should be enough to not discard him for the foreseeable future, or at least until there is evidence of declined level.

 

[laughingcavalier]

I think we shouldn't really laugh at records from the past regarding age, how much has life expectancy been improved since then? How much is modern medicine and far lighter rackets helping the players? How much easier is it to play tennis now?

Federer performances at W 2019 and AO 2020 during the first set of the SF (while not being 100%) should be enough to not discard him for the foreseeable future, or at least until there is evidence of declined level.

I still think that Federer has what it takes to beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final... I mean,of course.. He had matchpoints.

However,in an Australian Open match it would have to be best of 3 for him to win.... Too much of a marathon to stay the course.Even if he does win the first set Novak eventually wears him down in Australia in a best of 5.

 

[Break point Dom.]

He'll be fine for first half of 2021 if he has no more injury setbacks. Shake off the rust at AO where he reached the SFs despite generally playing mediocre level this year. Not sure if he'll play clay although I do think it help his all round game at Wimbledon 2019. He's got one good Wimbledon run left in him unless his level dramatically drops.

After that he'll be a 40 year old tennis player and US open isn't a good tournament for him anymore particularly if he's put on the night session (completely different to Melbourne). Had some really poor results in last few years once he's got into the second week.

Once he gets to 40 the tennis stands of time really are running out but there's still a small window of opportunity left for him I think as his tennis IQ can get him past many opponents still.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Maybe even losing to them would suffice e.g. taking them into the fifth set in QF or SF and making them tired for SF and F vs fresher and younger guns.

Yes, this as well. He can contribute to their decline as well. So I do not know why Fed fans are not fighting until the bitter end and instead giving up. The war is not over

Hahahaha ... Now you're really taking the piss and going back even furrrrrther

... In those days mate they just stood there and gently hit a ball over the net with a wooden racquet.No body wear & tear and torque and all that crap.No shit you can make a final at 44 years when you do that.

... However,I do agree with your premise.A 38 year old old almost beat a player like Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.That's significant.Keep playing while you can.Hang up the boots when you're walking off the court 2,2 &2 in the scoreline and no longer competitive.

Back in those days they played 5 sets in every single tournament, not just slams. Plus, everybody played doubles. AND there were no tiebreaks. Matches routinely had 13-11 and 12-10 sets thrown in randomly.

In the end, regardless of era, if you are in your 40's playing vs guys have your age, it is still very impressive.

Roger still has much to give imo

I think we shouldn't really laugh at records from the past regarding age, how much has life expectancy been improved since then? How much is modern medicine and far lighter rackets helping the players? How much easier is it to play tennis now?

Federer performances at W 2019 and AO 2020 during the first set of the SF (while not being 100%) should be enough to not discard him for the foreseeable future, or at least until there is evidence of declined level.

People on average are in worse off health now than then. Obesity and heart disease and so on are at their highest now than ever, but that is another story

 

[laughingcavalier]

Maybe even losing to them would suffice e.g. taking them into the fifth set in QF or SF and making them tired for SF and F vs fresher and younger guns.

.. I call it 'marinating' a player... When one puts the breadcrumbs on a player and keeps him lame for the next.The thing is though a 4 or 5 hour match with Federer isn't as physical grueling as it would be if it was Nadal or Djokovic.The latter make you hit more balls.
When Djokovic won last years Wimbledon final it was nigh on 5 hours but he would've been fine to play another match in 2 days if need be.However,let's all remember after his near 5 hour semi-final match with Del Potro in 2013 he was absolutely knackered for his final against Murray.Sore as hell.Besides,even if Djokovic & Nadal do play that long against Federer but then win their next match in straights it's all negated anyway.Maybe if he gives them blisters for playing that long could it have an adverse affect if the match stretches out.

 

[yellow grass]

Maybe even losing to them would suffice e.g. taking them into the fifth set in QF or SF and making them tired for SF and F vs fresher and younger guns.

I've heard of these younger guns but I've never seen one

 

[florentine]

People on average are in worse off health now than then.

Hmm, they still had a healthy lifestyle .. pretty jazzy.

We have already talked about la Lenglen with his flask of cognac on the court, but for example also what cost the first Grand Slam in history in 1933 to Jack Crawford US Chpships ....

Just as the U.S. National Championships unfolded, Crawford was featured on the September 4, 1933 cover of Time Magazine. His last obstacle in obtaining one of the most difficult accomplishments in sports came at Forest Hills and in the person of Fred Perry. New York Times columnist John Kieran wrote, “If Crawford wins, that would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled, and vulnerable.” Crawford dropped the first set 6-3, but dug into his reservoir of strength and ability to win the next two sets in dramatic fashion, 13-11, 6-4. But his fuel tank emptied. It was said that Crawford was an asthmatic who frequently took brandy mixed with sugar to help his breathing during matches, and on the muggy afternoon in Forest Hills he was said to have downed two or three doses of the concoction, though there are differing accounts of what Crawford actually drank. Whatever the reason, Perry took full advantage, winning the next two sets, 6-0, 6-1, denying Crawford his accolade. The first singles Grand Slam would have to wait for Donald Budge in 1938, but in some measure of consolation, Crawford rose to No. 1 in the world due to his tremendous 1933 campaign.

same story in French

Le grand chelem arté de Jack Crawford

 

[Johnny Groove]

Hmm, they still had a healthy lifestyle .. pretty jazzy.

We have already talked about the Lenglen with his flask of cognac on the court, but for example also what cost the first Grand Slam in history in 1933 to Jack Crawford US Chpships ....

Just as the U.S. National Championships unfolded, Crawford was featured on the September 4, 1933 cover of Time Magazine. His last obstacle in obtaining one of the most difficult accomplishments in sports came at Forest Hills and in the person of Fred Perry. New York Times columnist John Kieran wrote, “If Crawford wins, that would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts, doubled, and vulnerable.” Crawford dropped the first set 6-3, but dug into his reservoir of strength and ability to win the next two sets in dramatic fashion, 13-11, 6-4. But his fuel tank emptied. It was said that Crawford was an asthmatic who frequently took brandy mixed with sugar to help his breathing during matches, and on the muggy afternoon in Forest Hills he was said to have downed two or three doses of the concoction, though there are differing accounts of what Crawford actually drank. Whatever the reason, Perry took full advantage, winning the next two sets, 6-0, 6-1, denying Crawford his accolade. The first singles Grand Slam would have to wait for Donald Budge in 1938, but in some measure of consolation, Crawford rose to No. 1 in the world due to his tremendous 1933 campaign.

same story in French

Le grand chelem arté de Jack Crawford

Yes Jack Crawford very underrated in the history of the game, he is on the Becker/Edberg/Wilander level, 6 slams from 12 finals, made World #1. Of course that famous match was the brandy. But he preferred the whiskey in between sets if the match was tense

 

[florentine]

It reminds us in passing that it is John Kieran the "real father" of the expression "Grand Slam", taken over 5 years later by Allison Danzig for Donald Budge's Slam