Roger, Over?
Rumors of Federer’s demise have been greatly exaggerated, it seems. Again.
“Federer, soon to turn 33, is running out of time to remain a champion.” — New York Times (6/1/14)
Those were the words that Christopher Clarey wrote following Roger Federer’s loss at this year’s French Open. After winning 17 Grand Slam titles in his illustrious career, though, it is hard to believe that Federer was worried. On Sunday, after battling No. 1 seed Novak Djokovic in a five-set Wimbledon final that was unquestionably the match of this year — and in the discussion for one of the best of all-time — Federer proved that winning on the world’s biggest stage was still within his reach.
Everybody loses, of course, even those who have sat atop the world rankings for a total of 302 weeks. But earlier this season, as Federer dropped all the way to No. 8 in the rankings — a “dungeon” he hadn’t seen in well over a decade — questions were being asked. It wasn’t just Clarey questioning him, either. Last year, after losing in the U.S. Open to Tommy Robredo, a gritty Spaniard primarily known for his clay court prowess, ESPN’s Greg Garber wrote a story whose headline read “From bad to worse for Roger Federer.”
This, though, was after Federer had just flashed some of the best tennis he had played in some time during a warm-up tournament, nearly beating his nemesis, Rafael Nadal, in the process. Perhaps coincidentally, Nadal (then the No. 1-ranked player in the world) has now lost before the quarterfinals of Wimbledon in each of the last three years. Federer hadn’t endured such a streak at a major since 2004 at the French Open.
Anthony Mitchel, former national coordinator for the National Junior Tennis League, thinks that the media and fans alike have been unreasonable in their expectations and treatment of Federer.
“They are expecting too much,” he said. “The thing is, they’re comparing him to what [Jimmy] Connors and [Ivan] Lendl did at that age.”
Mitchel makes a good point. Twenty years ago was a completely different era in tennis, one in which physicality was not such a major part of the equation. Top players routinely competed into their 30s, whereas today’s elite players see the dominant portion of their careers end by age 28.
In reality, even before making this year’s Wimbledon final, Federer had already put together a quietly solid season. He began his 2014 campaign with a solid semifinal appearance at the Australian Open, dropping a competitive match against Nadal. Along the way, he managed to beat defending Wimbledon and Olympic Champion Andy Murray, yet for some reason, many still seemed disappointed.
Yes, an incredibly high bar has been set for arguably the greatest player to ever hold a racquet, but where is the fairness when it comes to Federer? All athletes experience diminishing performance at the tail ends of their careers, but the thing is, Federer hasn’t really shown demonstrable signs that his play is falling off a cliff.
The truth is that in many ways, Federer is a victim of his own success. From the truly great, we expect greatness, and nothing else will do.
“That’s kind of the standard and the bar he kind of set for himself,” says Phillip Simmonds, a former professional player with a career-high singles ranking of No. 219 in the world. “I think you’ve got to cut him a little slack [when it comes to winning].”
Returning to the place where he’s earned seven titles, Federer needed no slack. He just needed a few more points. The fortnight proved that he is someone who isn’t ready to hang up his tennis shoes just yet, nor should he.
It isn’t that Roger is back, though, it’s that he never left.
