Will Roger Federer ever win another Grand Slam?
Yes. People forget the bulk of cold hard facts when discussing Roger Federer’s struggle to win his 14th Grand Slam. They attribute factors such as age, Rafael Nadal, and certain losses to young players as the end-all proof that the Fed Express has derailed.
Federer is only 27, which apparently means 90 in tennis years. It’s easy to associate Federer with aging talent such as Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, and Marat Safin because they are all former No. 1’s in their late twenties. It’s unfair to lump Federer into this talented, albeit inferior, bunch. Federer has won 13 Grand Slams. These guys are nowhere near that pinnacle. By capturing one more, Federer will surpass Pete Sampras as the most decorated player in the Grand Slam era. Keep in mind that Federer’s style of play is usually compared to that of Sampras. What I find interesting is how similar their careers have been as well. They both went pro as teenagers, then dominated for five years in their early twenties. Sampras never won a French Open – neither has Federer. Sampras won at least five championships at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open – same with Federer. Their careers are eerily similar when you compare statistics. One fact remains, however: Pete Sampras won the U.S. Open at age 30. I don’t see why Federer can’t do the same.
Oh, that’s right. Rafael Nadal. Federer can’t seem to beat the Spaniard. At 24 22, Nadal has already amassed seven six Grand Slam titles and is actually the true contender to win more Grand Slams than anybody in the sport’s lengthy history. Nevertheless, the guy has just begun to win hard court tournaments. His victory at this year’s Australian Open over Federer proved that Nadal has broadened his game. Everyone who witnessed his epic match against Federer at Wimbledon last year knows he can play on grass as well. The true test, and Federer’s saving grace, will be at the U.S. Open, which Federer has won five consecutive times. It’s the only Grand Slam Nadal hasn’t won, but it’s definitely within his reach. Remember, even though pundits like to compare Federer with Sampras, they absolutely love to compare Nadal with Andre Agassi. While Federer and Sampras were better players overall, Agassi was the last to win all four Grand Slams in his career. Nadal is more than capable of the same feat.
Bottom line is yes, Roger Federer will win another Grand Slam. Will he get two or three more? I doubt it, but it goes without saying that Fed could easily remain one of the top-five ranked players on the ATP Tour for the next few years. Sampras retired at 30, at a time when many believed he had a couple solid years left. Still, he did so as the most successful tennis player of all time. There wasn’t much need to continue if there wasn’t anything else to prove. Sampras could not predict the likes of a young Roger Federer breaking into the game, quickly accumulating three Grand Slams a year. It’s unpredictable because it’s a phenomenon. Nadal and Federer are both phenomenons. Fortunately, Roger Federer knows this about his rival. He can’t bow out now, not when he’s so close to the Grand Slam record.
From this point on, it’s a fair assumption that Federer will never again win the Australian Open or Wimbledon, or ever win the French Open. But mark my words: Federer has one more Grand Slam in him. It will solidify his stature as the best player tennis has ever seen. This moment will eventually come at the U.S. Open.
Posted in: Tennis
Tags: Roger Federer, Roger Federer 13 Grand Slams, Roger Federer 14 Grand Slams, Roger Federer age, Roger Federer getting older, Roger Federer Grand Slam recrod, Roger Federer slowing down, Roger Federer vs. Pete Sampras, Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal, will Roger Federer ever win another Grand Slam
|
|
|
|
What a load of rubbish. I would bet quite a lot of money that the following statement turns out to be wrong:
“From this point on, it’s a fair assumption that Federer will never again win the Australian Open or Wimbledon, or ever win the French Open.”
Federer has been more dominant at Wimbledon than the US Open, but just happened to run into a Nadal who edged a very close match because he won the important points. He hasn’t looking like losing to anyone but Nadal at the French Open in recent years, all it would take is Nadal to get injured then Federer could triumph. The Australian Open is played on a slightly slower surface than the US Open, but if you think Federer can win the US Open, then why not the Australian as well? One tight five set loss to Nadal in the final this year is no reason to write him off forever.
Nadal is 22 (and not 24) and has won 6 Grand Slams (and not 7)
Hey,
You might want to actually get some of your facts correct before writing a load of garbage, all right. Listen to what Eduard said…
What a load of trash!
“From this point on, it’s a fair assumption that Federer will never again win the Australian Open or Wimbledon, or ever win the French Open”
when did u start watching Tennis? Yesterday?
No man in his right man would ever say Federer will never win Wimbledon again…That Guy is God on that surface…
The last thing I do is Mark these words.
“will roger federer ever win another grand slam?” that’s one darn stupid question : he reached the final of the last 4 slams, and lost in tight 5-set matches twice. At the Australian Open he beat Del Potro 6-3 6-0 6-0 then went on to crush Roddick in straight sets (in a 19th consecutive slam semi-final).
besides, Fed plays better each year at wimbledon. the thing is, he’s not confident as he used to be ; but why would that be irreversible???
What — did this get posted over at the Federer Fan Club and everyone is seeing red before even reading the piece? Nadal errors aside, this piece is pretty pro-Federer even if the author is down on his chances of winning Wimbledon or the Aussie Open again…
“Federer has one more Grand Slam in him. It will solidify his stature as the best player tennis has ever seen.”
What if Nadal wins this year’s Wimbledon and U.S. Open? Then is it a fair question? (By the way, the author answered his own question with a resounding “yes.”)
The author could have used better wording in the final paragraph, but I agree with John – this is mostly a pro-Federer piece.
Chances are most of you read the headline or pulled a couple of things to criticize and moved right to the comment section. Step away from the ledge, read the piece again and then comment.
All right. I’m just getting back from the fourth orthopedist I’ve seen in a year, a smart guy who’s telling me that I’m probably going to need surgery because I have a winged scalpel. And what do I find when I return? A bunch of dudes who have Roger Federer as their computer and cell phone backgrounds — a bunch of dudes that probably have his face embroidered on their pillows — a bunch of dudes that would rather meet Fed than their own president — a bunch of dudes who are great at skimming articles and even better and responding to sports blogs.
Lighten up and re-read the piece. This post is entirely pro-Federer. These responses were the type a Hannah Montana fansite receives after somebody says something negative. Here’s the thing: nothing about this post is negative toward Federer.
To me:
Christopher, well done. Apparently, you’ve been watching Nadal so long that misreported on two facts about Nadal. That wasn’t so well done, so be sure to recheck your numbers next time even if you think you have them memorized. Other than that, your analysis on Roger Federer, the focus of this piece, was even-handed, poignant, and deserving of at least the Pulitzer.
To Richard:
You’re right and you agree with me. You said it yourself that Nadal would have to get injured for Federer to win a Grand Slam. Federer can’t beat Nadal. He’s now lost to him at the French Open, Australian Open, and Wimbledon. True, Fed’s beat Nadal at Wimbledon in the past, but this was before Nadal has truly blossomed. Fact is, Nadal is entering his prime while Federer is leaving it. There’s no way around that. And you’re incorrect when you say that Federer has been playing great against everybody but Nadal: Federer almost lost to Thomas Berdych in five sets at the Australian Open. He’s still the second best player in the world, don’t get me wrong, but his game is slowly slipping and it’s not as good as Nadal’s. Those tears at the Australian Open were in recognition of that.
Eduard:
You’re correct. Keep in mind that I sometimes purposely slip in errors in an effort to encourage comments on my posts. But seriously, it was a simple fart of the brain. Thanks for smelling it.
Tennisfan:
Like I said, I screwed up those facts about Nadal. It still didn’t alter the subject of the piece. But now that I’ve “got my facts straight,” my opinion is exactly the same. Federer can’t beat Nadal unless he makes some changes or Nadal becomes plagued by injuries. I believe Federer can take another Grand Slam – but I think I will be at the U.S. Open.
Tim:
I didn’t start watching tennis yesterday. I’ve been watching it for a very long time. I do think Federer is God on the surface. I just think Nadal is becoming so eclectic that he is God on that surface as well. He beat Federer on that surface last year. Like I said, Nadal is just entering his prime while Federer is leaving it. It will take a lot for Federer to beat Nadal on any surface. Plus, really look at the wording in my post. I said “it’s a fair assumption,” that this will happen. That doesn’t mean that it’s definite. Yes, I’m mincing words, but only because you misconstrued mine.
Phil:
I agree with you. The problem is Nadal.
John:
Always the smartest guy in the room. I’m completely confused and disappointed at how many people interpreted this piece as anti-Federer. It’s anything but. “But mark my words: Federer has one more Grand Slam in him. It will solidify his stature as the best player tennis has ever seen. This moment will eventually come at the U.S. Open.” You’d think I was the one having his baby.
Anthony
The voice of reason. Our rock.
Coming back from the hospital, I actually saw a guy on standing on top of our local JC Penny threatening to end it all. “That moron thinks Federer will never win another Wimbledon. There’s no reason to go on.” Thankfully, I read the piece aloud to him over the megaphone. He listened this time, closely, word for word, and it made sense to him. He stepped off the ledge and I bought him a pair of Dockers.
By the way: What are you doing on this tennis board? Go write about our national pastime.
roger has to win against nadal psychologically before physically winning against him. i storngly beleive roger had his best days already. now any player in the top ten can beat federer in a given day. he has to be content with what he already accomplished. another grand slam, as long as nadal and dokovich and murray are around… will remain a dream…sorry roger
this article is so full of shit. I dont know if u have been watching tennis for the last 5 years but federer has made at least the semi-finals in the last 19 grandslams. I mean he won the us open last year and lost in the aussy open final in five sets to nadal, who is playing the best tennis in the world. Federer told media his focus will be the grandslams this year and not the masters 1000. He definetly does not put as much effort into those tournements as the grandslams. If u are a nadal fan thats great, i may not be a fan of his but i respect him. I dont know why u cant give federer some respect he does have the second most grandslam titles in history.
Dude. Did you read the article? It is entirely pro-Federer. I said he would, in fact, win another Grand Slam. I just think his best shot is at the U.S. Open since he rules there and Nadal has never won it. Read closer before you break the keyboard.
I could predict Federer can win one more grand slam to reach the record of Sampras or he is deserved too. As of now many players can beat him. Its not because of his bad form. it just because other players are playing better than him. As per my opinion Federer cried in the final because of his higher expectation.
IT’S ALL ABOUT “COPING WITH THE CHANGE”, IT’S TIME TO FEDERER TO CHANGE HIS WAY IN DEALING WITH NADAL AND OTHER PLAYERS, AS THE USEDTO BE AMATEURS, BUT NOW THEY ARE MORE PROFESSIONALS.
FEDERER CAN MAKE THE CHANGE AND HE HAS THE CHANCE TO BE THE BEST PLAYER EVER.
Well, well, who is going to win the current Grand Slam, the French Open – it is certainly not going to be Mr Nadal, but could be old aged Roger!!!
Like I said in the article, I did think Federer would win another Grand Slam, I just thought it would be at the U.S. Open against a healthy Nadal.
Federer will hopefully win this French Open, but it’s because of Nadal’s knees and the amount of tournaments he played up the French. What did Federer, who took a bunch of time off to prepare for the French Open. Nadal played everything on the tour, and has tired himself out.
Still, props to Federer. He’s earned it.
“This moment will eventually come at the U.S. Open.”
WRONG
Not WRONG, actually. If you actually read the piece, I said that if Nadal continued to play at 100%, Federer’s best chance to win is at the U.S. Open.
However, Nadal isn’t 100%, so I’d expect him to win at Roland Garros. He’s still the second best player in the world. If Nadal remains injured, I would assume Federer would win every Grand Slam.
Not to say Federer didn’t earn this, but it’s definitely a qualified win, and followed the predictions made in my article.
Chris,
Your article is mind provoking indeed, though I’ve found it enticing and would say that it’s a great writing.
So, now Fed has (finally) won the RG, and true enough, maybe.. it’s because Nadal wasn’t playing 100% as you’ve said. but Fed himself wasn’t really playing 100%, as he’s had a lot of near-misses of getting exterminated earlier on.
IMHO, Fed would still have a chance to win Wimbledon, US open, and future grand slams albeit if Nadal is playing at 100%… only if RF can play 110%. From what I’ve seen, most of the matches between them in the final was more of a mental Game… where the one with the stronger mind would win.. Most clear case would be 2008 wimbly and 2009 Oz open, where Fed practically gave the 5th Set away as he couldn’t handle the pressure, while Nadal was breezing through (mentally).
In simpler words, Fed can win not only if Nadal is worse, but also when Fed is better. But again, it’s just my opinion.. I must admit that I maybe hopeful because I am a Fed fan, though I have the utmost respect for Nadal.. and I would love to see him do well in Wimbly as well.. for the sake of Tennis.
Henry,
Congratulations, you are the first tennis fan on this board with a considerate response. It’s sad, that most of these tennis “fans” (and tennis is considered one of the “intellectual” sports, mind you) decided to berate me based off an ill-informed opinion. So, thank you, Henry.
I agree that Federer is currently an enigma at Grand Slams. He can drop two sets early on against a guy like Tommy Haas, but then proceed to destroy Soderling in the final. It doesn’t add us. Soderling beat Nadal, but then gets annihilated by Federer.
In terms of playing ability, I believe Federer has the ability to match the younger Nadal into a five-setter. However, Nadal seems to play with that lack of mental anxiety that Federer (though quietly) eats away at the Swiss.
However, his quest to tie Sampras is now complete. When you’re a star in any sport, it does becomes about the stats — who has the most rings, the most championships, the most Grand Slams, etc. Federer’s recent win at Roland Garros should ease his mind. His just need ONE more to be the most celebrated (if not the best) player in tennis history. He’s still got 3-4 years left of top-level playing. Nobody can outmatch Federer or Nadal so it should be those two winning the Grand Slams over the next couple years. If they experience more injuries, my money’s on Djokovic and Murray. Nevertheless, I’m not one to say who’s better in the grand scheme of thing. But AT THIS POINT a healthy Nadal is better than a healthy Federer. There’s no way around that. One has the confidence and lack of reaching a specified record (Nadal) and one is aging and is simply trying to pass Sampras (Federer).
When it’s all said and done, I love both players and the rivalry is perfect for the sport. End of story.
Thanks for the comment. To all you other rubes out there, shut up.
Federer has won 2 out of the last 3 Grand Slam tournaments. The idea that Federer is near the end of his grand slam winning period is a bit strange. He still has a great chance at every slam he plays.
Gerrit,
Thanks for the comment. It’s only a bit strange considering everything in my article is proven correct. Federer is still a fantastic player, but it will be strange if he continues to win Grand Slams against a healthy Nadal.
It’s not strange that Federer won the French Open considering Nadal’s injuries. I’ll shut up if Federer faces a completely healthy Nadal at Wimbledon and wins. Still, I couldn’t be happier for Federer.
Chris,
Your argument makes no sense. The REASON Nadal is not healthy is because of his style of tennis…he plays a very aggressive, physical game and sooner or later it will catch up with him…this is not Federer’s fault!
Federer has kept healthy, done well at all grand slams up to this point (20 consecutive grand slam semis; not even NADAL has shown that kind of consistency).
There is only one person to blame if Nadal get’s injured…and that’s RAFAEL NADAL (or that uncle toni). But head to head, when both are healthy, I agree that there is very LITTLE between both of them…most of their matches go to 5 sets..
of course federer can win against a healthy nadal, but for this he needs to overcome his mental blockade. this was federers main problem in the final of the australian open, no doubt. and dont forget that this guy had mononucleosis, which is a quite strong disease. other competetive athletes had to end their carrer or had to make a long pause as a consequence of this disease. so its still incredible what federer achieved last year. and that he becomes older an losses more often to younger guys and of course to nadal is the most normal thing. i remember how hewitt and roddick destroyed sampras- especially on hard court -in his last years on the tour, and still sampras won the us open with the age of 30(he was a bit lucky, because he had not to play neither of them). i think there has never been a more complete tennis player than roger federer, and its a pleasure to watch him on the court. of course he is not getting younger and each year it is going to be more difficult to win (a) grand slam(s). but now, with the french open title, he is already a legend and in my opinion the best player ever. from now on everything is like a bonus, he has proven all yet. he is just great! the day when he quits tennis will be a huge loss for the sport, becaue not every decade brings out players like roger federer (and even rafael nadal, who is doubtless also already a legend).
the last thing i want to discuss is the head to head federer -nadal (6- 14). many people say, that federer cannot be the greatest ever when he has such a bad head to head against a player of his generation(well, nadal is truly not exactly his generation, but say it like this anyway). just keep in your mind, that 12 of this matches were played on clay (10 -2 for nadal) and the rest on grass and hard court (4-4). so the head to head is not that bad, when you consider that nadal is the greatest clay court player ever.
and maybe nadal- if he stays healthy- will surpass federers records, but at the moment he is far away from federer.
i just read that the head to head federer- nadal is 7- 13.
2- 10 on clay and 5- 4 on other surfaces.
OMG, I am looking around trying to find posts that gave Federer done… That’s the beauty of Sport. Of course, if Nadal will be continuous as Roger has been, he will be among the greatest as well. You guys should remember Safin’s premises/promises for example!
looking back i see how silly these ‘tennis analysts/bloggers’ can be.
they simply make conclusions based on the current situations, without looking at the long term possibility..
as of now, federer is on the verge of his 3rd GS after the ‘great defeat’, while this article says he only has one left in him.
conclusion:dont be a fool and try to predict the future..
Sampras was 31 when he wan his last USO. And time has proof you wrong my friend. Fed has already collected two more slams in fews months (a feat you considered very unlikely for the rest of his career). Prediction for 2010: Fed wins Wimby. I think he will have 17 slams at the end of his career….
“Will he get two or three more? I doubt it, but it goes without saying that Fed could easily remain one of the top-five ranked players on the ATP Tour for the next few years. From this point on, it’s a fair assumption that Federer will never again win the Australian Open or Wimbledon, or ever win the French Open. But mark my words: Federer has one more Grand Slam in him. It will solidify his stature as the best player tennis has ever seen. This moment will eventually come at the U.S. Open.”
Has this Chris Glotfelty fellow been sufficiently shamed into never posting again and revealing his ignorance?
I’m writing this as Raj has won his 16th title at the Australian. Let’s update this site every time Raj wins a GS title.
Hey what a difference 9 months can bring: 3 slams after that prediction. IMO healthy Nadal or no healthy Nadal it was always on the cards.
With hindsight we see how the article could have been worded but we won’t crucify Chris over it. However do we know everything about how it’s like to go head to head with Fed, slam after slam 5 sets after 5 sets let alone when you are given to chasing after every ball from every top player add to that Federer’s wicked slices and touchliners. Very few people do. And of those that do one day they may admit in their autobiographies “I wish I had approached things differently”. Andy Murray take a hint.
Still thanks Chris for your opinion.
it is pretty funny how everything the author predicted did not happen lol. Fed has not won the US Open, yet he won one each of the three others , the complete opposite of what was said in this article! LOL ridiculous.