JimF — July 8, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Well, since no one ever dominated tennis in the open era the way Federer has, expecting that to continue is unlikely.

But in the last year when Federer missed his normal training program, and had a serious illness, he destroyed Nadal while winning the year-end Master’s in December, made the Australian semi’s, made the French finals, made the Wimbledon finals, and will be favored at the U.S. Open.

At Wimbledon he came back from two sets down. Watching the two players after the end of the match I think if it had been best of 7 Fed would have won .

Federer could reasonably be expected to make at least two major finals a year for several years, which would lead to some major victories.

You also have to ask who is going to replace Federer as number one?

Nadal is great. But if he is going to supplant Federer, he has to do something AFTER JULY. He may. But he never has before. His hard court performance is not only spotty, but injury-prone. Perhaps he’ll fix that, but I don’t think we can simply assume he will.

Remember, when Djok. was supposedly going to match Nadal in supplanting Federer? Then the hard court season was over and so was he.

So, who is going to replace Federer? He’s still the best of a class of three that is separating from the field.

Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Jim: I think we’re going to enter an era of relative parity amongst players at the top–Nadal and Federer will clearly be the two best players in the world, but we’ll see more breakthroughs from players like Djokavic. My main point, again, is simply that Federer won’t be the dominant force in the game any longer. He’ll still win some majors, but the air of invincibility is gone…and that mental edge was Federer’s biggest weapon.

Max Winters — July 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Any player that can come back from 2 down on the “clay-like” surface that Wimbledon has become, against Nadal is not washed up.

Let’s watch the U.S. Open, but especially Australia next year.

Maybe someday, Wimbledon will return to the fast surface that made them stand out.

Daniel Bolton — July 8, 2008 at 7:12 pm

“let’s think about a better time when the champion of Wimbledon wasn’t a capri pants/cutoff t-shirt wearing Spaniard who moans on the court like a reject from the women’s tour.”

make your prejudices less transparent next time.

JonW — July 8, 2008 at 8:17 pm

We can all agree that Federer has been a great champion. Great champions respond to challenges. As tough a battle as we saw, don’t forget that Fed made over 50 unforced errors, and inexplicably tried too many approaches to Rafa’s forehand.

Sometimes it takes an epic loss to spur a champion to greater levels of play. 26/27 is pretty young, especially given his injury free career.

It will be fun to watch how Roger responds.

Rodolfo — July 9, 2008 at 1:14 am

Well I totally disagree with this article. We are not talking about any regular player here, this is Roger Federer probably the best tennis player of all times. Federer will come back from this and will win many major tournaments.

There is one thing I might agree on, Federer probably wont dominate tennis like he has been doing, and this is only because he has truly found someone like Nadal able of beating him.

There is one more thing, yes Nadal is a fantastic player howecer he does have that injury that always keeps bothering him. Well see how that goes….
Federer will be back and soon.

Giuseppe Mirelli — July 9, 2008 at 2:04 am

First of all Mr. Suellentrop and Mr.Bunch get your facts straight before you write a piece and give your silly opinions. Federer won 12 majors not 11.

Furthermore since winning seems to be a priority for everyone who can’t differentiate between a winner and the most talented. Federer is unquestionably the most talented player of today and perhaps in history. The Nadals will come and go but Roger is irreplaceable. His style, his finesse, the totality of his game is exceptional. Nadal can beat Federer for the next 5 years but he will never be as talented as Roger.

Federer will undoubtedly break Sampras’ record and then go down in history as the greatest tennis player of all time.

Nadal is not great. When he approaches 12 slam titles then we can put him in the category of greatness. As of now he is not even half way there and his style of play is very short term.

adnan — July 9, 2008 at 2:08 am

I think that this article is almost completely wrong, I am a firm Nadal supporter and always has been but you have got to admit that Federer did not decline, its just that Nadal has really really continued to improve his game up to a point where he can be the dominant force. If there was no Nadal in this world, then Federer would have around 16 majors now and would still be the No.1 by far. Novak Djokovic is not really that much of a threat to Federer or Nadal.

Leo — July 9, 2008 at 3:44 am

Dear me, those journalists. Like vultures. Here’s another one who’s writing Federer off.
Please don’t forget his glandular fever. Not quite a life threatening disease, yet a serious problem for a competitive athlete, especially one of such high caliber. At the highest level it surely means the difference between winning and losing, getting to the ball on time or being half a step slow. And it can be pretty nagging, I’ve seen it trouble people for months. Considering the disease, the fact that Roger has still been so consistent this season is nothing short of a outstanding, and only attests his phenomenal ability. At the Australian Open, where he was apperently already ill, he only lost to Djokovic, who’s one heck of a player, in three close sets. I believe that Roger has only recently fully recovered from the mononucleosis. And it must also compromise one’s competitive edge. So given all that, the way he played agains the indefatigable Nadal in London, coming back and pushing it all the way to 7:9 (and beging affected by the darkness) proves that he’s far from spent, and if he still has the desire, he can come back with a vengeance. It’s nice to know you usually turn out to be wrong, and I sure hope you’re wrong big time on this one.
Ah, you mentioned Agassi and Lendl, but forgot Connors and Navratilova. Generally early bloomers also tend to lose it relatively early. Nadal is certainly an early bloomer, and his game is frighteningly physical, rather like Hewitt (and look where Hewitt is now), only he’s a better player overall than Hewitt. He works very hard for every point, and given the way he plays, I really can’t see Nadal maintaining this sort of intensity even into his late 20-ies. And I believe he’s already had foot and knee injuries. Federer, on the other hand, only came of age in early 20-ies, he is ease and elegance epitomized, doesn’t work nearly as hard for most of his wins. So the age difference between them becomes almost irrelevant. Again, it’s all up too Roger and whether he still has the desire to play and win. If he does, he might well stay at the top for another few years, perhaps with a break somewhere in between.

Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 9:13 am

Clearly I will not convince you guys to my POV, and hey, that’s fine! I’m fully willing to admit that I’m going out on a limb here–Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player I’ve ever had the privelege to watch, and if he proves me wrong I’ll give a tip of the homburg and be happy to admit it. I’m simply pointing to a trend: players as dominant as Federer can’t dominate forever, and 26/27 seems to be when they hit the wall. I would, however, like to follow up on two specific points.

Mr. Mirelli: You’re right, Federer has won 12 majors, but in the specific period I’m looking at (i.e., the ‘03 to ‘07 seasons, a period in which he’s clearly the greatest player in the world and dominating the game like no one in a decade had), he won 11.

Mr. Bolton: If this was a purely journalistic effort, I would have cut that line about Nadal and how he annoys me. (Actually, I probably would have found an anonymous source on the tour to make all of those complaints for me and kept it in the piece. That’s how journalists work.) But fortunately, this isn’t a purely journalistic effort! I can denigrate the Spaniard’s appearance all I want in my own joint, thank you very much.

AJS — July 9, 2008 at 10:13 am

I agree with you that it is unlikely that Federer will return to his previous unbelievable level of tennis, but he is probably the best player ever, and I still believe that he will break Sampras’s record and win many tournaments to come - particularly Wimbledon. However, you lost all credibility for me when you insulted Nadal, he may not have as much pure, raw talent as Federer, but you cannot deny that he has become a force to be reckoned with on and off the clay courts as well (there was the small matter of beating Djokovich on grass at Queen’s only weeks earlier). He has worked hard to get to where he is today – which is a damn good tennis player. Why don’t you be a little less biased and read what people who have actually lived through that kind of thing have to say (the names Bjorn Borg and Jon McEnroe spring to mind); they have admired Federer’s game for years, and agree with you about his talents, etc., but they also recognise how far Nadal has come. Finally, I think that being “possibly the best clay-court player of all time” (quote: Boris Becker) is a little bit more than just “a capri pants/cutoff t-shirt wearing Spaniard who moans on the court like a reject from the women’s tour.”

Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 10:39 am

AJS: I’m not disputing Nadal’s talent–he’s the best player I’ve ever seen on clay. Despite my aversion to dirtballing, I’m more than willing to grant him that. As a tennis player, Nadal is great. It’s his aesthetic that I despise; I had the same problem with Agassi early in his career.

Geoff — July 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm

I’m disagree for a couple of reasons.

First, Federer just hasn’t declined all that much in the last year. Check out the wikipedia page on Federer, scroll down to the bottom, and take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

He failed to win the high profile tournaments that he won last year, reaching only the semis in australia and the finals in wimbledon. But if you throw out australia because of the mono (which seems reasonable to me), then he has two finals instead of a win and a final. Plus, he was dominant in both those tournaments until he reached Nadal - which hints more at Rafa’s rise than Federer’s decline (after all, Fed’s performance against everyone else seems as strong as ever).

Plus, he exceeded his season last year in a few tournaments. Indian Wells? SF insetead of 2R. He went farther in Miami, matched his final at Monte Carlo, went farther in Fome, and just barely missed Hamburg (again, losing only to Nadal)…

If Rafa hadn’t been in the picture, it seems most likely that Fed wouldn’t have won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, as well as Monte Carlo and Hamburg. It’s speculation, of course, but who else gave Federer a serious challenge in these tournaments?

So I guess you can say Federer is “over”, but I think this definition dilutes the meaning of “over” to the point of ridiculousness.

Geoff — July 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Oops, should have said “seems most likely that Fed *would* have won…” rather than “woudldn’t” . Probably obvious, but figured I should clarify.

Wanda — July 10, 2008 at 9:50 am

Roger Federer may not be at the top of his game right now, but he has made it to the finals consistently. Though he has not won the French Open, neither did the Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras has 14 Grand Slams under his belt and Federer is closing in on that. I really believe Federer will eventually tie this record, but even if he does not–he will always be considered a great at the game. Can others show the consistency that we saw in Agassi, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Borg..etc..on and on.

What bothers me the most is that I feel the dying breed of serve and volley players on the decline. I have to admit I enjoyed watching the baseliners of the past, because I felt that they all brought some personality to the game. Now it is, basically, baseline play. I hope Federer stays and give us more magic, even if he may lose his ranking. I hate he lost Wimbledon, but the match was really to close to call him a real loser. I call great tennis when you can come back from being two sets down and make it to a very very close fifth set. What the sports writers are basically writing out there about the demise of Roger Federer is as sad as thinking I may never see another serve and volley player grace the game.

I hope he keeps playing just like Agassi did. I want to continue to watch his magic. I know many more do, as well. He is not done.

Ramesh Prabhu — July 10, 2008 at 9:58 am

To paraphrase John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious”

There are quite a few people that are writing Federer’s obituary – I’d like to add prematurely. You say done means he will probably win two or three more majors. I guess Roger’s biggest fault is that he has set himself a very high standard that even a slight slip is magnified as a huge fall.
Agreed that this year’s Wimbledon loss was huge, but considering the way that he bounced back from two sets down and almost (I bet that Borg is happy that his name is still in the record books) won his sixth consecutive title, I think Roger’s far from being done. Roger’s too classy to attribute his slip to the glandular fever that he suffered at the beginning of this year, but as someone who has followed his career for a long time, I could clearly see that he was a step slower. Roger can afford to be a step slower against most people and still beat them, but to beat Nadal, he has to be at his very best, and he has been at his very best at Wimbledon until this year. I have at the same time seen the fact that he has only gotten better as this year has gone by, and I would look for him to bounce back and win the Olympic gold and the U.S. Open.
Slice it and dice it any which way you want, even at his “advanced” age of 26, Roger’s ONLY threat is Nadal. Novak would like to believe that he is in the mix, but his second round defeat to Marat revealed a lot about his mental state - 10 double faults in one match (Roger had 6 the entire tournament). I can even explain why Nadal appears more of a threat than he really is. Go with me here… Roger’s “fault” is that he has been the second best clay courter the last four years. Unfortunately for Roger, this means he is going to run into Nadal every time they play on clay, and almost every time his game is bound to come up short. While Roger has the game to beat Nadal on any other surface as evidenced by his 5-3 record on surfaces that are not clay, his record against Nadal on clay has got to weigh on his mind every time they go head to head, especially after a clay court season where he has lost every final to his Spanish opponent. From Nadal’s perspective, this should give him more confidence and belief that he can beat Roger on other surfaces. If on the other hand, Roger had not been a very good player on clay (like Sampras) his aura of invincibility on other surfaces would be still there. Does that make sense?
You write about how you could see fear in Roger’s eyes. Let’s think about this… He has been the world’s number one for the last 4+ years with Nadal and the rest of the field breathing down his neck. I cannot imagine the pressure that he has faced day in and day out. It is simply astounding to think that he has swatted away most pretenders who have nothing to lose when facing him. I speak from experience when I say playing “up” is a lot easier… no pressure, just go out and play. My game is great when I know I am playing someone who is better than me, and I have nothing to lose. Conversely, it isn’t that great when I know I “have” to beat someone who I know doesn’t play as well as I do. If nothing, the Wimbledon final really revealed Roger’s famed mental edge. How many championship points did he have to save? And no, he didn’t win them because his opponent donated it to him… he had to hit winners to save them and all of this with the pressure of having to defend his Wimbledon streak. Agreed he did come up short – has happened to every great one so far. Roger without a doubt is the best big point player in the game, and that alone is going to be enough for the next few years.
Now, let’s get to how the futures are going to play out for Federer and Nadal… There is a HUGE difference in the effort that goes into either of their matches. While Roger is effortlessly efficient, Rafa’s bludgeoning, bruising approach means more wear and tear over the next few years. Don’t get me wrong, I like Rafa for the great player that he is and the great person that he is, but I don’t think he can sustain this level too long. His second half of the season every season is evidence enough as to the toll his body takes. Look at what happened when Leyton’s wheels (his incredible speed on the court) came off. As I mentioned before, Roger can afford to be a step slower and still win a few more slams. Write him off at your own peril. Question a great champion’s heart at your own risk.

Andrey Rybalchenko — September 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm

July 7, 2008 -> World renowned blogger pronounces “Federer is done.”

September 8th, 2008 -> Federer dominates the U.S. open, closing in on Sampras’ record.

LOL