What’s Roger Federer Been Doing? Driving To Practice That’s What!

by Tom Gainey | December 1st, 2013, 4:56 pm

Roger Federer is back on the courts following a mid-November family vacation in the Maldives. The 32-year-old who’s become an avid tweeter since joining the social media service in May, tweeted a photo of his drive to the courts on Friday.

Federer is just a month from returning to action. The Swiss will be playing in Brisbane for the first time starting on December 29th. He’s then expected to have a week off before the Australian Open.

You Might Like:
Roger Federer Driving To Practice, Hoping He Can Get A Parking Spot [Video]
Emma Raducanu Loves Driving In America
Roger Federer Breaks the Speed Limit in New Mercedes-Benz Commercial [Video]
Roger Federer a NY Yankees Fan? [Photo]
What’s Novak Djokovic Doing? He Went Skiing Earlier This Week [Video]

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

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

47 Comments for What’s Roger Federer Been Doing? Driving To Practice That’s What!

skeezer Says:

Lookin very cool Rog. Enjoy the practicing and good luck in Brisbane!

Hawkeye Says:

What’s this? An article not about Rafa? Strange.


Humble Rafa Says:

Without a new head, he is headed nowhere.

Perfect fan Says:

Pls-pls-pls TOM….I literally plead that u post fed’s 2014 schedule (if it is out yet). I really do enjoy going thru that. Plus, any update on if rog gonna stick to his old stick (WILSON BLX PRO STAFF 90….am i right??) at AO or he is planning to move to a larger head????

I am so happy he is playing a tuneup b4 AO at Brisbane….i think its a first timer at brisbane (if i m not wrong). GOOD LUCK TMF for 2014….ALLEZ!! :))

skeezer Says:

“Without a new head, he is headed nowhere.”
He has won 17 without a new head, why are u worried?

U should be worried about eating bananas during the match…

Okiegal Says:

After what happened to Rafa, they should all be worried about eating bananas!!! Lol

Okiegal Says:

I’m glad Roger is getting some good practice in. I hope he does great in Brisbane. I for one would love to see him win since some of his “so called” fans have written him off.

Michael Says:

Well Nastase has said that Roger can continue playing even till 50 as long he has the passion, good health and indomitable will. I am not sure whether I can agree with this proposition. But although I would like Roger to be seen on courts, I get that stinking feeling only when he loses more than often. May be as fans, we should get used to that bitter medicine in the near future as Roger cannot always keep winning. So, let us just enjoy this Mozzart on court without worrying too much about the result.

I Love Tennis Says:

As a Roger fan … win or lose, i love to see him on court, play that beautiful tennis that captivated so many, admired by lots of tennis enthusiast, and adored by thousands of his fans.

Goodluck on his 2014 ….

Tennis X Hippy Chic Says:

I dont know if Roger will still be playing tennis when hes 50 seems like a tall order and a long way off anyway,but if you look at Ryan Giggs whos still playing football at the age of 40,and still loves the game as much as he ever did,so why not Roger in tennis.

Perfect fan Says:

Tho i’ll be more than happy if roger goes on playing for another 4-5 years….but i’ll be absolutely euphoric if he gets a slam in 2014, wins perhaps 5-7 titles, storm into top 3 (not necessarily be no. 1) and then sign off after WTF (wud be icing on cake if he does that with winning his 8th WTF)….I knw-I knw this is all dream talk and its pretty tough (going by his current state of play), but thats “MY WISH” !! :)

But then again, i think….if rog does get his 18th in 2014….then i’ll start tinkering with my thoughts that why not 19th in 2015….Ha-Ha! greedy me ;)

Perfect fan Says:

^^Oh-oh….my bad!….to be read above “winning his 7th wtf….”

It proves how greedy I am ;)

Sirius Says:

Good luck, roger

Tony Carlisle Says:

I love Roger. Love him or hate him, you cannot deny his accomplishments. The man has more grand slam wins than any other man in the history of the sport and is still playing. Any tennis player these days can trace some inspiration back to Roger. He (in my opinion) is the greatest player of all time.

SG1 Says:

Michael Says:
Well Nastase has said that Roger can continue playing even till 50 as long he has the passion, good health and indomitable will.


I remember Sampras saying that as long as he had his serve, he’d hang around because he felt he’d still have a chance to win Wimbledon. Then at 31, he was gone. I can’t see Federer playing past this season if he plays like he did last year. Federer may love to play pro tennis but does he love it enough to take a lot of losses year in year out? I doubt it. He’s a great competitor. Great competitors hate losing. Time will tell as it always does.

SG1 Says:

I do agree that Federer will need to look at some more advanced racket technology. The rationalization that he won 17 slams with the old racket is not a good reason to stay put unless he’s really tried a bunch of rackets and can’t get comfortable with any of them. He hasn’t won a slam in almost 18 months and he only won one tourney last year. The young guys are pushing him around a bit. He does need some extra pop in his game. A more powerful racket could help in this area.

skeezer Says:

“I remember Sampras saying that as long as he had his serve, he’d hang around because he felt he’d still have a chance to win Wimbledon. Then at 31, he was gone.”

You probably know this already, cause it seems like you play the game, but Sampras’s serve still wouldn’t have carried the day as he got older. It’s really all about movement, and as soon as you start losing a step in this game you can count on going down the ladder very soon. That is what I am looking for in Fed if he is going to stay at or near the top.

hawkeye Says:

Ivanisevic won Wimby just before his 30th birthday with just a serve but that was an early indicator of a problem in tennis.


Ben Pronin Says:

Djokovic said as much, that Federer just isn’t moving as well as he used to.

Okiegal Says:


You are so right about losing a step. I played basketball and when I graduated I missed playing so I started playing with an independent ball team. I played a few years and when I reached my late 20s I started to notice that my reflexes were not what they once were. I figure that happens in most sports. When that happens I think your confidence level hits an all time low. I think Roger still has a lot left in him but his confidence is shot. He doesn’t seem as patient as he once was, but also a long baseline rally tires someone his age and when tired the end result isn’t good. I hope he can come back strong……hey, Tommy Haas did! Good luck for Rog in 2014…….not ready for this amazing athlete to retire. I know his true fans will be disheartened, but by the same token you don’t want to see him losing often either. It’s a catch 22 situation.

skeezer Says:


You’re so right about Haas. But Fed @ 32 over 1100 Tour matches in the bag. Tommy @ 35 has a little over 800 ( which his mostly due to his injuries throughout his career. ). Older, but considerably less mileage.
Regardless, I am hopeful there is still some youth in those legs, but saw a lot of “losing a step” this year. HIs game is all about movement to set up those unreal shotmaking skills. As my coach once said, “doesn’t matter how well you strike the ball if you can’t get to it you can’t hit it.”

PS: You shouldn’t be losing your reflexes in your 20’s. At a recent conference, they did a test on reflexes, and you can retain your reflexes into your late 50’s without hardly any degradation. And it is possible to do certain exercises to keep your reflexes in shape ( notice how a lot of our Airline Pilots are older? ). It’s more the bigger muscles and endurance( and the mental as you mentioned ) that goes in the age process. I’m not Roger Federer, or claim to know how he should work out, but if it was me I would be asking our great Rafa poster “Kimberly” to show me how to do the hard yards. Trust me, she knows how. My imo as you get older you have to work twice as hard to compete. Just my 2 cents.

Steve 27 Says:

I think he has one more year to be a top 10 and win a Master 1000. Thats it. All stories comes to an end and if he looses more often in the majors and I dont think he would keep playing until 2016 for the Olympics. Not all the players are Jimmy Connors to mantain the fire withim them.

Okiegal Says:

I was playing ball with girls 18 yrs old and I couldn’t keep up. My bro was our coach and he would show us plays and it seemed as though my coordination was lacking and therefore my movements were a step off. Basketball being a team sport as opposed to individual sports, I screwed up the whole play, because I couldn’t keep up! I could still shoot as good as always…..but I decided it was time to find a new hobby and I did….9 1/2 lb. bouncing boy…career over!! Lol I think some athletes are born with good sports genes. Fed is an example of that. I can’t think of another player who has played as much and as long as he has and stayed healthy…except for mono, nasty stuff to get over and the back issue. The back prob later in career.
But if I was big time backer of Fed I would be sad if he chose to retire. He has given us some great entertainment. He is definitely Mr. Wimbledon!!! Sorry this was long……bored……Okiegal

Okiegal Says:


I took tennis lessons once and I knew from the get go I wasn’t geared up for tennis. Having played basketball for years interfered with me learning tennis. It was crazy, I was terrible. I have watched tennis for a very long time and love it. I wish I could have picked it up…..but wasn’t meant to be!

steve-o Says:

C’mon Roger!

Michael Says:


True. The question is whether Roger has the thick skin to suffer one humiliation after another. Ofcourse, judging from the pensive mood when he has to do that ceremonial handshake with the competitor of late it is evident that Roger hates to lose. If he plays long enough as Nastase suggests then Roger should be prepared for some real whacking by the top players where he is out of comfort zone. Roger is still good enough to beat players outside the top 10. But, such a ham-handed performance would not win him tournaments or the majors he is looking after. So, it basically boils down to Roger’s temperament to handle defeats with maturity, a kind of learning experience and move on. I am not sure whether Roger has that patience in him since he is pretty used to being the No.1 player who hogged all the attention during his glorious hey days. Therefore, I am sure Roger would like to see how 2014 works out. And if the story of 2013 repeats, he might hang his boots in all probability.

skeezer Says:

There are some NBA players who have be some really good tennis players! I’ll have to look them up. No pros, but take heart, there are some simular things, like footwork and speed, hand eye coordination. Keep tryin!

lorry Says:

He’ll always be the greatest player in every sense of the word at least until someone most probably rafa surpasses his grand slam titles and then he will be the greatest so on and so forth, as for me grand slams is the only measure they should be judged by. What do you guys think?

Perfect fan Says:

I think roger being down a bit mentally (esp. in this season)….he has intentionally cut down on his movement to prevent further damage to his health. I have been shocked to see him leave the ball pass by him on innumerous occasions during matches in 2013 (which even a amateur cud have run to). But somehow, i dnt think its the age that is affecting him….rather the lack of confidence is leading him to lack of commitment during rallies.

But the positive is I have seen him improving (slightly though)from the matches at Basel onwards. Hope his lack-lusture season in 2013 will inspire him to do well in 2014. I still believe at age 32, he can do wonders (even win slams) coz his game had never been physical….at least he make it seems like that.

Frankie Says:

I imagine the bad back had something to do with his movement but he seemed to be doing better at the end of the year.

Looking forward to 2014!

hawkeye Says:

lorry, I think it is purely subjective as to who is the best. Some say slam count only whereas others consider different criteria with majors obviously the most important factor, no?

Do I think Roy Emerson was better than Laver just because he has one more major? No.

Similarly, do I think Agassi and Connors were better than John McEnroe? No.

To each his or her own.


Okiegal Says:


Hey, thanks for pointing out that about pro players that play tennis……that might encourage me to give it another try! I am right handed, and if the ball came to my backhand side I would switch the racquet to my left hand……so I think I have too much to overcome!! I will continue to watch it and enjoy!!

In Oklahoma we are waiting for a major ice storm…that should be fun.

Have a nice week, Skeez.

Daniel Says:


The consensus in tennis community (open era) is the 3:

– Number of Majors
– Weeks as #1
– Year end #1

Sampras had the 3 before Fed, which holds 2 but have only one less year end than Sampras.

Nadal for example can even surpass Fed in Slam count but most likely won’t surpass weeks as #1 or Year end #1. But if he gets close he will have the accolade because similar to round robin format, if the doubt is between the 2, HxH will have an impact as Nadal have a superior HxH.

It depends also because Fed Slam count is more balanced. Nadal’s US Opne this year was a benchmark for his future GOAThood, because many (me included would consider him GOAT even if he had 16 or 17 Slam with 12-13 RG). It would be somewhat bizarre.

I think for Nadal aside from the Slam count he needs to reach 200+ weeks as #1 and get at least one more Year end #1. 2013 was an amazing year for him because he was coming from time off and when Djoko won AO seemed he would win multiple Slams last eyar. The doubt was even if Nadal would win a Slam, let alone 2.

Now that it is past 2014 can cement his foot on GOAThood. If he can finish this year as year end #1 *even if he exchange rankings with Djoko somewhere in between) and wins 2 Slams again. It will be almost lock for him to equal or Surpass Fed, he will just have to win 2 more in 2015 or 2016 before he reaches 30. All of this assuming that Fed doesn’t pull a Houdini and still one major this year, which history aside with his age, is almost sure his last realistic (and even that is a tall order) year to win a major.
Because any win by Fed will count as 2 Slams further for Nadal, one Fed increased and one less he didn’t, separating them the further.

This year could be one of the most important years in the history of our sport:
1 – Djoko can complete a career Slam, kill Nadal sprit in RG and save Fed’s legacy
2 – Fed can win another major as his swan song (18 sound better than 17, no:-) and possibly settled the GOAT Debate
3- Nadal can win 2 or 3 Majors and virtually lock the debate for next years which will probably lead hikm to more weeks as #1 and year end #1.

Any of this happening and the year will be spectacular.
If, however, none of the 3 happens, Fed doen’t win a Slam, Nadal wins only his usual RG and doesn’t finish Year end #1 and the other Slams are shared between Djoko, Murray or Delpo, it will be a “on hold” year. Nadal will still have a shot, but the main opportunity will have pass him by.
2014 is his do or die year to become an even greater legend. He is #1 and 2 Slam holder with a possible second career Slam on the loop in 1 and half month away, AO 2014. That’s must be his main target now.

hawkeye Says:

Who’s consensus? The “tennis community”?

Please provide SOME reference or source.

No, I highly suspect that this is but one opinion.

I agree that number of majors is by far the most important criteria and that is generally accepted.

Your other two criteris are mixed in terms of importance subjectively (i.e., no common consensus) among several other considerations – one very important (and generally accepted) of which is number of tournaments won especially Masters 1000. Not sure how that was left off of the “consensus in tennis community” but I have my suspicions.

For example, Connors is a true great because of his number of majors but also very importantly because of his leading 109 titles and his career longevity.

Maybe the “tea party” consensus though, along with best hair.

skeezer Says:

^”one very important (and generally accepted) of which is number of tournaments won especially Masters 1000.”

No, I highly suspect that this is but one opinion.

skeezer Says:

Lol. Remember Monica Seles? 2 hands both sides. You can do it ;). See ya.

hawkeye Says:

No I’m not alone with that opinion. Here are two more that share this view.

This is too easy. Hilarious!

fedfan Says:

“Well, the absolute title, that’s Connors, 109 victories,” Federer said. “I’m at 74 now. Is it possible for me to equal Connors’ title? 110, that would be a round figure. That would be incredible. But that’s a dream. I go year after year, and we’ll see.”

skeezer Says:
Congrats to the GOAT, just adding truth to the title.



Ben Pronin Says:

How many Masters does Connors have? McEnroe? Borg? We don’t know because they didn’t play “Masters”. The Super 9 fist started in the 90s and became Masters in the 00s. I agree that they’re important, but it’s hard enough to compare across eras, adding something that has been around for barely half the Open era is just a reach.

hawkeye Says:

Tournaments Ben, tournaments. Criteria evolves and with ATP trying to standardize tennis and making more tournaments mandatory, Masters wins are a criteria today.

Hard to compare eras period. The game evloves drastically.

It is all pure subjective opinion (My point all along)…

Even though Tiggy’s GOAT opinion was fedfan, I agree with his take in this story:


“That a computer could be so off-base shows again the logical impossibility of any GOAT debate. In 2005, for the 40th anniversary of Tennis magazine, the editors did a countdown of the 40 best players of those four decades. We looked, roughly, at Slam wins, time at No. 1, and total titles.”

“Stats don’t lie by themselves, but they also don’t exist by themselves. Someone has to choose them, and everything is subjective after that.”

“Federer? He’s the best, he’s the GOAT-but for my life? When the chips were truly down? I’ll take Nadal.”


Preach it Tiggy, preach it.

hawkeye Says:

^^^ note the criteria of total titles.


Daniel Says:


Maybe youa re not following tennis for a long time. But if you read and hear comnetors said and played, go to clubs usually they are te most important. Total titles count but no nce consider Connors total that much important because back then you could play nore tourneys, you didn’t have to play the minimum 8 mastres of today etc… but it is an impressive number.

That you go again, total titles is another positive for Fed as he is behind only Connors and Lendl.
So yous ee in the GOAT debate he is number 1 in slams and #1 recorda whicha re the most important and #3 in Titles. He basiaclly is int he top 3 in all considerer parametersand that’s why he is the GOAT.

If we apply a mathmatical model (someone could), listing 10 parameters to evaluate and give a percentage of importance for each and do a calculation I bet Fed will be on top of it. No one has ever had a resume as complete as his. Plus the way he plays is a bonus and what started all the fus a decade ago.

Masters will be a potential parameter but always a secondary one. Plus when they move it to 3 sets final it shift the way to compare. Fed won most of his in best of 5 finals cntrary to Nadal who won most of his in best of 3.

skeezer Says:

10:29 post
Lighten up. The reference from my post was towards Masters, not ATP titles. Thanks for mentioning my name though. And Fed does keeps breaking records.
You are too easy, hilarious.

hawkeye Says:

Daniel, I’ve listened to Nole and Murray when interviewed in 2011 that said Nadal is the best ever at a point that Nadal had 10 majors, less weeks at No. 1 than he does now and no WTFs.

That’s good enough for me along with other tennis players who have put Nadal into the debate.

skeezer Says:

“I’ve listened to Nole and Murray when interviewed in 2011 that said Nadal is the best ever”
Have a link for what you were supposedly listening to and what the context it was in? Sorry, based on all your previous claims of authority, you’ve proven extremely untrustworthy.

hawkeye Says:

As far as “untrustworthy” you can provide zero examples.

Nothing new.

hawkeye Says:

Already posted those links on this thread skeezer.

How did you miss them?

Hawkeye Says:

Nick Saban to be named fedfan’s new coach.

Top story: Tsitsipas Streaks To 10 Straight On Clay, Gets Rematch With Ruud In Barcelona Final