Roger Federer Admits To Partying Hard After Winning Wimbledon [Video]
by Tom Gainey | July 20th, 2017, 9:49 am
  • 34 Comments

Following his record 8th Wimbledon title, Roger Federer admitted to partying hard until the early morning Sunday night with his friends and his family.

Federer then had to get up early Monday to hit the media circus, but did so with a bit of a hangover – I’m sure Cilic wishes that had happened Saturday night.

“Went to bed at 5. I spent time without about 40 friends that came from around the world and mostly Switzerland to support me,” Federer said. “We went out to a bar and ha da great time. And got back to bed at some stage and woke up with a headache in the morning.”

Can you blame him though? Last year Federer looked on the brink of his career being over. Now, he’s won both Grand Slam’s he’s played and he’s 8-0 against Top 10 players in 2017.

Here’s a good interview with Federer via Sky:


You Might Like:
Partied-Out Serena Williams Misses Her US Open Media Tour
Roger Federer Once Had A Pamela Anderson Poster On His Door (And He’s The Next James Bond) [Video]
Novak Djokovic Says He Prefers The TV Cameras During This BTS CNN Media Feature [Video]
Does This Video Remind Anyone Of Nick Kyrgios? [Video]
Celebrations Continue in Serbia after Davis Cup Win [Video]

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

34 Comments for Roger Federer Admits To Partying Hard After Winning Wimbledon [Video]

skeezer Says:

Saw him i another interview also, yes, he partied hard! Good for him!


Giles Says:

Keep taking the stuff fed. Lol


lylenubbins Says:

awesome


Pamela Says:

Mirka is a good wife.. Let’s him do his thing… And yeah for Roger.. As the article said, one year ago everyone (for the most part) wrote him off and here he is better than ever…. I think that deserves a night of partying!!


madmax Says:

For the Murray Fans:

I am waiting for an answer from [Andy] Murray. It would be great to have him involved.’ At the moment Federer himself Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Dominic Thiem and Tomas Berdych will play for Europe Team. Milos Raonic and John Isner will compete for Rest of the World.

Laver Cup won’t be the only exhibition event for Federer in the second half of the season: on Tuesday November 7, just after Paris Bercy event, he will play a charity match with Murray in Glasgow. The money raised will be devolved to charity activities.

‘I have never been before – first time’, Federer said. ‘Will I put the trophy up for grabs? No! Now it’s in here, it’s mine so we’re not putting it up for grabs now! Not that one, quick match showdown.

No, we’re not going to do that! We’re going to have a good time and I really think it’s wonderful what he’s doing in his philanthropic efforts, good causes. I think we can do so much more in tennis. He was wonderful in Zurich.

People walked away from it, so many people told me how much fun Andy actually was, what a great sport he was so I was so happy he did that and I can’t wait to return the favour.’

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/Roger_Federer/45603/roger-federer-novak-djokovic-won-t-play-laver-cup-/


Humble Rafa Says:

Mirka is a good wife.. Let’s him do his thing

Xisca also lets do my thing. Anything I want to her.


J-Kath Says:

Yep Madmax – saw a similar article. To be honest I am a bit confused when it says Roger hadn’t been to Glasgow before. I seem to recall an event when Andy + Roger played a charity event there approx. 18 months ago and Andy put Roger in a kilt and warned him about deep-fried Mars bars. Or perhaps this was a story tag following Zurich.

If Margot’s around she might remember – (obviously not saying she was there- especially if it didn’t take place).


Weirddays Says:

Actually, the greatest of all time is easy, by the merit of numbers of slams.

However the best of all time question is the tricky one.


Willow Says:

Personally ive always loved the idea, that we have a number of all time greats instead past and present, too many different caveats to the topic, understandably posters pick their own criteria to suit their argument ….


Willow Says:

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawarinka, Mac,CONNERS, Aggassi, Sampras, Laver , Emmerson, Borg IMO all the all time greats, and thats amazing and good enough for me ….


J-Kath Says:

Anyone with a spare $20,000 can buy 8 Wilson/Wimbledon raquets
specially designed to celebrate Federer’s Win.


skeezer Says:

^That goes to charity.
This guy is truly your favorite tennis player of all time, right J-Kath?


Giles Says:

“8 Wilson/Wimbledon raquets specially designed to celebrate Federer’s Win”!!
Hmmm. Let me think, I’m only interested if I can buy 16. Is this possible? If not forget it!
ROFL


skeezer Says:

Giles,
Am sure he’ll sell ya 16 @40k, hit him up on his FB page.😉
Have your cash ready👍


Michael Says:

He deserves it. Let him taste his unparalleled success.


Willow Says:

Michael can we apply that standard to all the players then, even when its the ones we dont care for or like ?….


Giles Says:

Isn’t he a bit over the hill to party hard? Lol


Willow Says:

Giles Im 48 and i still do ! ….


skeezer Says:

RIP Mervyn Rose 🌹

—-

Now back to partying hard in the celebration of RF historic WW.


Giles Says:

Willow. You be careful girl…. Lol


Tony N Says:

Mervyn Rose (second from right) with Ken Rosewall, Rex Hartwig and Lew Hoad (left to right). Rose was once described as “the John McEnroe of his era” (read “Passion still burns for Merv Rose”).
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/63e46a3a05e4bc069cb063414c3a7fca?width=650


J-Kath Says:

Gosh Skeezer – You don’t have a monopoly on the truth…I never thought that anyone – especially you – would think that Roger’s raquet-types were being sold to enlarge his coffers. ….he and Andy’s Glasgow encounter is for charity as well – in case you didn’t know


Tony N Says:

J-Kath: “For posters who like to debate “greatest of all time” – the following may interest…” (see link in her OP)

For some facts, arguments and truths on this issue, read the following only if interested…

The author’s faulty argument is based on the assumption that Rod Laver “would have won at least another 10 slams, taking his tally into the twenties… had he remained an amateur (and, too, those others that turned pro during this period)… during those five years (1963-67) where there were 20 grand slam tournaments Laver was unable to contest.”

The reality is that Rod Laver might not have won any amateur Grand Slam championships before 1964 had the best players remained amateur and competed against Laver in those amateur GS before 1964 (Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Pancho Gonzales, Andres Gimeno, Tony Trabert, Frank Sedgman, Pancho Segura, Ashley Cooper, Barry Mackay, Earl Buchholz, Alex Olmedo, etc.). In 1961, the L’Equipe magazine ranked Rosewall No. 1, followed by Gonzales (2), Hoad (3), Trabert (4), Segura (5), Gimeno (6), Cooper (7), MacKay (8), Olmedo (9), Buchholz (10), Laver (11), Mal Anderson (12), Roy Emerson (13), Nicola Pietrangeli (14), Manuel Santana (15). In 1962, Laver probably would not have won his amateur grand slam had Emerson not beaten Laver’s clay nemesis Santana in the semifinals of the French championships – or if the top pros had competed in those slams. In 1963, Laver was roundly beaten during his pro debut, suggesting that the top pros were still the best players in 1963, e.g., Ken Rosewall beat Laver 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 at the US Pro Slam, Rosewall again beat Laver 6-8, 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4 at the French Pro Slam and Earl Buchholz beat Laver 6-1, 6-4 at the Wembley Pro Slam quarterfinals. Rosewall also beat Laver in the 1964, 1965 and 1966 French Pro Slams (twice in straight sets, once in four sets) as well as in the 1965 US Pro Slam (in straight sets). It is Ken Rosewall who holds the record of 15 Pro Slam titles, including the Pro Grand Slam of all three major titles in 1963. And Rosewall has beaten Laver slightly more often in their biggest finals between 1963 US Pro Slam and 1972 WCT Finals.

So, had the world’s best players all remained amateur during the 1960s (or had Laver been pro throughout his career), my guestimate is that Laver would probably have won 15 to 16 Slams. Laver might not have won any of his six amateur Slams between 1960 and 1962. Laver might possibly have won 0 to 2 Slams before 1964. Laver would most likely have won 13 to 16 Slams in the six years between 1964 and 1969 (out of 24 available Slams). Rosewall probably might have won 16 to 18 Slams, including several Wimbledons, had the same applied since 1953.

As the author noted, Laver “joined the professional circuit established by Jack Kramer, where he competed against other legends such as Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales.” Laver himself rates Jack Kramer the second-best player before the Open Era (1877 to early 1968). Kramer fought for the tennis Slams to be open to the pros as well as later co-founded the ATP. Kramer had played or practiced against all the greats Bill Tilden, Donald Budge, Pancho Gonzales, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver. So Kramer is probably the best qualified person to assess Laver and Federer. Kramer has never considered Laver among his GOATs, even though Kramer had signed Laver to play on Kramer’s pro circuit from 1963. Kramer died during the 2009 US Open.

In 2007, Jack Kramer said that Roger Federer was the best player he had ever seen: “as someone who is better placed than most to analyse players through the ages, he is ready to anoint Roger Federer as the best he has seen. ‘I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good,’ he says. ‘And Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-volley. I’ve never known anyone who can do as many things on a court as he can.’ (From “Jack The Lad” )
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/jun/24/tennis.wimbledon8

In 2008, Todd Woodbridge wrote: “Is Roger Federer the best of all time? Yet recently I had reason to say Federer is the best singles player to have played the game… Nearing the end of our chat, I broached the subject of Federer and asked if he compared with the greats of Kramer’s era. Federer is tied with Roy Emerson on 12 grand slam titles and looks set to pass him on Sunday week. You would think Pete Sampras’s record of 14 titles looks likely to tumble soon, too. Having played against and watched every champion since the 1930s, I thought there was no one better credentialled than Kramer to answer the question. Kramer said Don Budge, Gonzales or Hoad might have been the equal of Federer if they had been able to use Federer’s racquet. Yet he had never seen any player do more with a ball than Federer. Federer, Kramer said, was the only player he had seen with the complete package; he is a fantastic offensive player, a super server and can play defence. We all have our dream match-ups we would have loved to see play against each other in their prime. Mine would be Rod Laver and Federer playing on Centre Court at Wimbledon. Kramer’s is Gonzales taking on Federer using the same racquets. Kramer finished the interview by saying Federer was simply the best player he had seen play the game. With credentials as good as his, who are we to argue?” (From “Worm turns Federer’s way in the debate”)

Finally, the author’s comparison of Federer’s slam numbers with those of “Margaret Court’s 24, Serena Williams’ 23 and Steffi Graf’s 22 singles titles” is irrelevant — because women’s tennis is another category of tennis (otherwise he should have considered all other categories of tennis, including wheelchair, juniors, legends, etc.) from the elite men’s tennis (ATP having the most superior and skillful level of tennis). During the period that Serena won her slams (1999 to 2017), it is likely that she might have been beaten by several of the Grand Slam boys’ singles champions. Furthermore, the WTA has a trade barrier (gender participation policy) that prohibits men from playing in WTA tournaments while the ATP has no such rule for any woman above 15 years old. That’s why the elite men play on the Association of Tennis Professionals world tour, not the Men’s Tennis Association.


Willow Says:

All too heavy for me, we have a number of all time greats and thats good enough for me ….


Willow Says:

Giles lol ….


J-Kath Says:

Thank You Tony N:

I find “who is the greatest” (in tennis) arguments almost impossible to reach a definitive conclusion. It’s a subject that I don’t find personally absorbing. Apologies but I do have other interests that absorb me more.

Skeezer’s comment related to the sale of “Roger’s raquets” and that they were for charity – a fact I hadn’t thought to include as we all know Roger isn’t anywhere near the bread-line….and is far from needing that level of money. Thus the implication was a sneer that because I didn’t mention the charity connection that I disliked Roger or words to that effect.

As far as I’m concerned “he/she who objects too much” tells their own story….and has no relationship with which tennis players I like or dislike. In fact in the first place I posted the original info. as of possible general interest.

Cheers.


Tony N Says:

What’s good enough for me is that the all-time greats (like Jack Kramer and Rod Laver) do think about the GOAT in tennis. Making sense of it requires at least an understanding of tennis history, otherwise it can be heavy to contemplate.
“Rod Laver’s Top 10 from Past and Present players”
http://timelesstennis.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rod-lavers-top-10-from-past-and-present.html


Tony N Says:

You’re welcome J Kath.

“Who’s the greatest? Laver or Federer? Who better to ask than Muscles Rosewall …” (page 1 of 2)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tennis/whos-the-greatest-laver-or-federer-who-better-to-ask-thanmuscles-rosewall-133/2009/07/02/1246127635758.html


Willow Says:

J-Kath great post especially the first paragraph ….


Willow Says:

I Will admit my knowledge of tennis is probably pretty limited compared to most people here, but hell so what i just to enjoy the game, it aint a war or life and death to me ? ….

Top story: Croatia at France in Davis Cup Final, World Group Playoffs Results