Poll: Will Roger Federer Win Another Grand Slam?
by Staff | July 6th, 2014, 3:05 pm

Roger Federer showed the doubters that there’s still magic left in his game. Nearing his 33rd birthday, Federer beat Australian Open champion Stan Wawrinka in the quarterfinals, then took out the powerful youngster Milos Raonic in straight sets.

And today in the final he came excruciatingly close to beating top seed Novak Djokovic before losing in a very tight, very well played 5-set thriller.

In the match Federer showcased his incredible movement and displayed some awesome serving, but Djokovic was just a touch tougher in the end.

The tour now moves to North America where Federer could again do damage on the quick hardcourts, so could a US Open title run possibly await. Or if healthy another shot at Wimbledon a year from now?

You Might Like:
Poll: Who’s Your Pick To Win The 2015 Australian Open?
Poll: Who’ll Win More Grand Slams, Andy Murray Or Stan Wawrinka?
Poll: Will Novak Djokovic Reach Roger Federer On The All-Time Grand Slam Leaderboard?
Poll: Will Novak Djokovic Ever Win The French Open And The Career Grand Slam?
Poll: Who’s Your Early Favorite To Win The 2017 Australian Open?

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

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

66 Comments for Poll: Will Roger Federer Win Another Grand Slam?

Hippy Chic Says:

Possibly if he gets a favourable draw,i think again Wimbledon would be his best chance….

Eric Says:

Nope. If Roger somehow makes it to the USO final, he will have made 5 finals in 5 seasons. He’ll make it to one or two more in his career, tops. If he has to play Djokovic or Rafa, I can’t see him winning another slam. Djokovic and Rafa both outclass him from the baseline — Roger can outplay them for a set or two, but over best of 5, history has proven they’re better, more solid, than Fed — and even one his career great serving performances betrayed him at the end today. He coulda, woulda, shoulda won, just like Wimbledon in 2008, the USO in 2009, the AO in 2010, and the FO in 2011. Something in Roger’s mental game just can’t lift him through these tight finals.

Eric Says:

(To say nothing of a certain pair of more recent USO semifinals.)

jane Says:

Eric, he won AO 2010. :)

Eric Says:

Good call, Jane. I guess I meant 2009. :) Way to smile on my mope-parade.

jane Says:

sorry. : /

i just am so happy.

and i think it’s possible fed could win another slam. i mean, after that performance today? he didn’t tire. he hung in there. he served tremendously. it just depends on draw, opponent, and all sundry of circumstances. but it’s clear the new racquet and fedberg partnership has been good for him.

Eric Says:

Yeah, no, I agree that it is within the realm of possibility. But this felt very much like a final shot to lift another trophy — already, he would have been the oldest male slam winner in the open era, right? So the odds are only going to get longer and longer.

And he served tremendously– conversely, he would have been out in straights if his serve hadn’t been unearthly. During sets 2-3 he couldn’t do much of anything to Novak in medium-length points. I guess I’m just saying, this was Roger’s chance to get in that one last title. On the other hand, that’s what we all said in 2012 too. Maybe Fed can win another US Open or something, but it’s clear that, henceforth, he is going to need EVERYTHING to go his way.

SG1 Says:

I think Federer played better today than when he won back in 2009. I’m not a big Federer fan but in my opinion, he went a long way to solidifying his position as the best ever with today’s performance.

I think he outplayed Novak for much of the match. Federer was the aggressor and he pushed the pace. His shots were more penetrating and more damaging. The flip side is that there are going to be more errors when playing this way. He just make a couple of unforced errors at the end that cost him.

SG1 Says:

I wouldn’t necessarily exclude from Federer from winning another slam from what I saw today.

SG1 Says:

Agree with Jane. This Fed-Berg partnership in conjunction with the new racket has upped the ante and if I were some of the other players in the locker room, I’d take notice come US Open time. Edberg won a couple of those too. It’s not easy to lose slams but I think that in a week or two from now, Federer will begin to appreciate how much better he’s playing now than a year ago.

Patson Says:

Fed needs one slam where Nole and Rafa are bumped out early. He needs to keep himself fit for the next two years to wait for that moment. There will be one slam in the next 18 months when this is bound to happen. When that happens, Fed has to be there to grab that chance. When that happens, he has to make sure he’s able to tame the young guns like Dimitrov and Raonic since they’ll be featuring in major semi-finals more regularly.

Will he be playing for the next 18 months ? I am sure he will be.

Eric Says:

Fed, I think, is absolutely mindful of the fleetingness of these opportunities. I thought in his fourth set comeback we could see something he has not always possessed, the desperate need to win that drives (for example) Rafa. He’s mature enough — and, now, experienced enough in losing — not to take it too hard (ahem, 2009 AO) in public at least, but you absolutely could tell how much he wanted to win this. It will be nice to remember how well he played, but it would be a lot nicer if he had won — just like the 2011 French Open, when he played better than Rafa, but still lost.

jane Says:

maybe we need jamie?

jamie predicted that rafa would win roland garros again

AND that nole would win wimbledon – before those slams even started.

so jamie…

will fed win another slam?
who will win the us open?

check your crystal ball please.

jamie Says:

Wawrinka will win the Us Open.

Federer is done winning slams.

tennisfansince76 Says:

I will answer this poll: highly unlikely. Still a chance but a lot of things would have to go his way like a favorable draw and a massive exodus of top seeds.

Steve 27 Says:

No, with Rafa and Nole around his chancers are ZERO.
Besides, no male tennis player won a slam with 33 or more in the last 40 years since the ATP was created. The best oldest male tennis player in the Open Era was Ken Rosewall. He reached the final of Wimbledon and US Open with almost 40.
He won RG with more than 33 and another final the following year.
He barely was beaten by John Newcombe when he was with more than 35 and in the next two months he won the US Open.
And with 36 and 37 he won the Australian Open, even he reached sf there with 42.
He won twice WCT with more than 37 years, he never won Winbledon because he was banned to participatte between 1957 and 1967, because he turned professional.
He is, undoubtely, one of the ALL Time Greats in history of this sport.

van orten Says:

Most people consider fed doesn’t have a shot vs nole or rafa anymore but on a not so good or unlucky day for them fed could still win. all I want is the critics or haters accept or appreciate that fact. I for myself totally respect nadal’s or Djokovic’s achievments most of all their heartbreaking wins vs our world’s finest. I will quit being such a hater and try to enjoy the matches in a positive way in defeat better said during defeat. Nole did not win today because he was better or younger or more talented etc. It was just his day. and that is ok. If fed wins or rafa it is theirs . During play we all freak out more or less but these matches are what I long for every tourney fed enters. His 5 setter history is pure drama and often painful. I believe we just want one more big win in five vs nadal or djoker. We believe he is due to win one great last before he leaves …us open will be fun to watch again. So many upsets and great matches. Anyone could spoil the party for your respective favourite player..cheers to all

Steve 27 Says:

maybe we need jamie?

Wawrinka for the US Open acording to jamie.
see if the prophecy is fulfilled

Daniel Says:

The last 15 Grand slam tournaments (from 2011):

Djokovic: 6 x winner, 5 x runner up, 3 x semi-finalist, 1 x quarter-finalist

Nadal: 5 x winner, 4 x runner up, 0 x semi-finalist, 1 x quarter-finalist, 1 x 4R, 1 x 2R, 1 x 1R, 2 x Absent

Murray: 2 x winner, 3 x runner up, 5 x semi-finalist, 4 x quarter-finalist, 1 x Absent

Federer: 1 x winner, 2 x runner up, 6 x semi-finalist, 3 x quarter-finalist, 2 x 4R, 1 x 2R

Djoko was 14 times semis or higher, Murray 10 times semis or higher, Nadal and Fed tied on 9 times semis or higher.

Nadal had the best percentage and he won 5 of the 9 times he went to semis. Actually all times he went to semis he went on to the finals, so once he goes deep he makes finals.

We can clearly see Djoko is more consistent, had more finals and more titles, but with a small margin over Nadal. Nadal also lost his share of finals in this period so neier player is particular dominant in GS final. Djoko is till 2-5 on last 7 finals he played so he needs to win a few more finals if he wants to increase his numbers and add more GS to his tally. Let’s see how US Open unfolds. Expecting another great tourney with a few upsets and even tough in the end are the same big players at least we get more drama now with the danger of new guys.

Also anybody knows about DelPo’s return, if he will play pre US Open. He can have a saying on seeding for tourneys as ne is still top 8 but we all know he won’t return the same level. Hope he could.

Grand Slam Says:

I am hard core Novak fan and verrrry happy Novak won and deserved it! But Fed proved to the whole world that he is no where near retirement! Great respect for both players!

Eric Says:

Meanwhile, outside the Roger Speculation Zone, a story truly about the future: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/sports/tennis/new-yorker-wins-boys-title-at-wimbledon-as-final-shows-us-promise-.html

For the first time since 1977, the Wimbledon “boys” final was between two Americans– and FIVE more made it to the round of 16. (Including a third semifinalist.)

The winner, Rubin, will play NCAA tennis for at least a year before turning pro. (He is already 18.) I think we’ve seen how well that prepares Americans to stay atop the heights of international pro competition, but if he’s good, maybe he’ll venture onto the tour sooner rather than later.

Brando Says:

Pre this event I would have said a firm: no (father time).

Post it though:

I hope he does.

Fed’s a fighter. I like fighter’s. If Rafa is the Raging Bull in Tennis then Fed is the Serene Assassin:

He kills the opponent’s in a beautiful manner.

I reckon he won more fans over with such a performance. He showed heart and fight in a way I had never really seen or gauged as such from Fed.

It’s great to see a new dimension from this one off talent Tennis has been blessed to count as one of our’s!

As for the question on hand:

Truthfully- I still cannot see Fed beating Rafa in any Slam going forward aged 33. Maybe it’s my Rafa bias but I think that matchup is a riddle that Fed cannot really solve.

Djokovic is a tough out but: IF Fed plays at peak pitch, Novak is as wobbly as he was in this final and a touch of his best then I see no reason why Fed cannot beat him then.

The rest?

A firing, fight and fresh Fed can still take out all the rest in GS final.

Regardless of whether he does so or not:

Fed’s 33 and we are asking such a question about him:

That fact alone underlines what a talent he is!

Winner for all season’s regardless of GS results in my book!

jane Says:

super interesting chart about fed’s tennis at wimbledon. 06-11 he hardly moved forward. 2012 and 2013 a bit more. but this year be served volleyed more than he has since 2003-4.


jane Says:

daniel, thanks for those stats!

Nirmal Kumar Says:

Jane, i believe the stat is only about S & V, not necessarily the number of times he went to the net in the match.

Nirmal Kumar Says:

Roger can, maybe on Wimbledon where his Serve gets due respect more than any other courts in the world. But still he needs Rafa and Novak to be away from his side of the draw, even in the finals.

He can surely take care of Murray and others at Wimbledon. But on HC and clay, the chances are very low, though there is nothing like impossible but this would be close to impossible unless Rafa and Novak are not in the picture.

jane Says:

thanks for clarifying NK. still interesting though.

jane Says:

just read this tweet/stat:
Djokovic is the only player ever to defeat Federer at every major.

Michael Says:


That is an interesting stat !!

Michael Says:

Yes, Roger can definitely win another major. Here is a man who seem to be sailing against the law of nature and stretching himself to the limits. And at 33, he is ranked No.3 in the World which is a phenomenal feat in this so-called tough era of Tennis. I think he can have a real shot in the next Wimbledon. But for me, this man has already done enough in his career and there is nothing left to prove. Leave this man in peace and let us enjoy his Tennis. He is playing today the sport just for the love of it. He is enjoying what he is doing and let us leave it at that.

Margot Says:

I thought Fed was amazing in that match, his movement, his desire to win looked so impressive. But it was his serve that sent that match to 5. Without it Nole would’ve won easier. He was all over Fed’s second serve.
Grass suits Fed’s serve, don’t think other surfaces suit it so well. And he’ll have to serve like that every time he meets another top player.
Can he? Not having a crystal ball, I cannot say.

Troy Says:

Can fed win another? Doubtful. He had a dream run at wimbledon this year with only really wawrinka worrying him before the final. But Fed should beat him on the grass court anyway.
It was only his serve that kept him in that match vs Novak. Novak had him covered in pretty much every other aspect.
The only slam I see him winning will be Wimbledon next year. With Novak, Rafa, Wawrinka all better players on the hardcourt and obviously Rafa on clay.
You never know though and you don’t write off one of the greatest

Francis blanc Says:

He can gonna be tough but he has won 5 us opens, no del Porto and lower ranked Murray help plus rafas not the most amazing player us open, next year will surely be his last shot and I just thought I’d point out that age is not such a factor in sport nowadays look at wilkinson retired 35 playing like a 25 year old plus nasal is very overrated and one dimensional we saw this at the Australian and wimblefon

judee Says:

jamie in a few weeks you will say murray or nadal going to win the us open? obviously you do not know anything

Giles Says:

Patronising comments from the joker fans! Typical!
BTW. Why did joker take that MTO? Anyone know?

calmdownplease Says:

`he can surely take care of Murray and others`

More BS from NK
No he surely CANT simply `take care` of Andy.
There will be no issue with Murray’s game by 2015 (hopefully) and he will be almost 34.
Agree with others here in that it was Roger’s serve that kept him in it particularly after the first set where he looked more competitive. Later in the match he just didnt look like he was hanging with Novak in the rallies.
Strange slam, Novak won because he (just) lasted the longest and was somehow able to raise his game a bit when it mattered.

Nirmal Kumar Says:

calmdownplease, i will change my sentence, if it would please you.

`he can surely take care of Murray but with great difficulty`

Jo Says:

At Wimby and USO, and if he dont collide w Novak, maybe yes. But this is my other opinion, Roger already gave his all in this Wimby, his home tournament. And at 33, will now get old overnight in the next tournaments. Bec the desire & determination and the legs is no longer there but is of on the improving young guns and the big 3.

calmdownplease Says:


why make a contradictory statement? If its with `great difficulty` it can’t be a sure thing now can it?
Just keep on underestimating Murray while you can.
And I’ll keep on commenting on it.
I’m not interested in changing your mind on the subject at all, its for other posters.

Margot Says:

Lol being an Andy fan is a bit like being a farmer, I imagine. You know, continually looking forward to a better harvest…;) Ah well, 2013 was a bumper crop!
Don’t quite know what you’re basing that statement on. Not the AO I hope.

Nirmal Kumar Says:

Margot, it’s based on their overall career. I consider Slams and WTF as the most important tournaments, where Roger likes to perform better. In both these tournaments, he has most often come on top of Murray.

I said a 17 time slam winner will most likely preside over a 2 time slam winner. Not sure if this is an exaggeration.

Margot Says:

I take your point and I agree in the past, in slams anyway, Fed has certainly got the better of Andy, but you’ve got to factor in Fed’s age.

Okiegal Says:

I got the impression from Fed that he’s not going anywhere…..especially now, since he got to the Wimby finals…..He is still working on those records, imo, and if he can win a slam a long the way, well good for him. He has to be the healthiest tennis player ever……He doesn’t even sweat much…..for crying out loud!! LOL Perfect tennis genes!! He will be playing awhile longer and why wouldn’t he, things have been going well for him lately. I really don’t understand why some of his loyal fans come down him so hard when he has lulls in his match and if it goes to 5 sets he cant deliver because of his age……give me a break and him one too. To win a slam at this stage in his life he will have to do it in straights and Rafa and Novak will have to be in casts. He can beat anyone else on the circuit with the exception of maybe Murray. My 2¢ worth.

calmdownplease Says:

`I said a 17 time slam winner will most likely preside over a 2 time slam winner…`

Not if one is 33 and the other is 27.
Pretty crass formula to use when all the circumstances aren’t calculated in.
No its not very logical in my view at all.
I mean why should Novak have even got out of bed in 2011 against a 10 slam winner otherwise?
Or a 16 slam one for that matter.

TennisVagabond.com Says:

That was the best tennis Fed has played since at least Murray 2012. How much of that is grass working to has favour? A lot. I’m a bug Fed fan, and I loved the match, but I think a lot of what worked for Fed:
* the serve
*the volleying
*chip and charge
*deep slice into the dirt zone
*and foremost, the incredible movement advantage that he will never have over Novak elsewhere, all were grass tricks that won’t have the same effect elsewhere.
But, all that said, this was a ridiculously high level match, and Fed has been doing that for two weeks.
If Fed can play at that level as consistently as he has here, he will be a threat again.
I agree with Brando’s assessment. The odds will always be against Fed vs Rafa, but there is SOME NON-ZERO chance that he can challenge Novak and go toe to toe.

Ben Pronin Says:

This match went a long way in proving a few things. First and foremost, the weak era argument needs to be put to rest. 02-07 didn’t have a loaded top 3 the way it does now, but it’s irrelevant when discussing Federer. He’s certainly blown chances here and there over the years, and he’s not as consistent or quick as when he was younger, but to do what he did against Djokovic was simply insane.

He’s number 3 in the world. And he’s not number 3 by luck, he firmly belongs there. You can make an argument that Wawrinka should be above him because he has a slam rather than just a final, but that’s it. If not 3, then he’s 4, and that’s not exactly bad. I also think it’s funny how everyone did a 180 on Federer’s age. When Federer fans say Nadal only has a huge h2h over the last few years because Federer is older, Nadal fans scoff at the notion. But now that Djokovic needed 5 to win, he should be ashamed because Federer is so old?

I don’t think so. Federer’s age matters as much as it doesn’t. As he gets older, his physical assets will inevitably diminsh and, what’s been obvious for a while, he can’t play at a high level as consistently as he used to. But this Wimbledon proved that he for 7 matches, on a prefered surface, when things fall into place, he can mantain a ridiculous level. Not only that, but he’s still very fit. I though if the match went 5 after 3-4 long sets, Federer would fade in the 5th. That didn’t happen. He was there until the very end.

If Murray and Federer are to meet at Wimbledon next year, we simply cannot take age into account. What will matter is what always matters, form, fitness, and who’s executing better on the day (these 2 in particular have quite the chess match of a rivalry that people seem to overlook for some reason). If Federer looks old and battered by then, only then we can say he’s too old. But not right now. Not after what we just witnessed.

I wrote Federer off last year, big time. Not anymore. I will never write Federer off again. Maybe he won’t win another slam, or even another title. But until he retires, I believe he’ll always have a chance no matter how small. He’s Roger freaking Federer. GOAT.

Brando Says:


‘I agree with Brando’s assessment.’:

You say that as if there is a choice in the matter! We all know Is speak around here!


In all seriousness though:

I’m no Fed fan but his performance on Grass this year has shown that he’s definitely a Contender at least on this surface until proven otherwise.

At the end of the day:

We could all say whatever we want but ultimately results/ performance is the be all and all. And when gauging Fed as a possible contender going down the road then this is the ONLY relevant measuring stick. And his recent form is all that really matters when trying to gauge this. In 2014 at Slams Fed has:

– AO: SF. A contenders performance that. He was excellent until he ran into you know who.

– FO: R 16. Not great on paper. But…….He lost in 5 set’s to a big hitter in Gulbis, and I think when Gulbis took is medical time out it definitely did affect Fed’s rhythm in that match.

– Wimby: RU. Awesome contending performance losing only in the 5th set.

Bottom Line:

The sheer FACT that we are even validly musing over Fed as a GS contender at age 33 is a major compliment to his talent in a era where he has Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka and others to deal with.

That’s quite a thing in itself when you think about it!

Nirmal Kumar Says:

@cdp..Novak is a different animal. let’s not even compare Murray with Novak yet.

A 33 yr old comfortably beat a prime Murray in AO 2014, so i’m not sure what advantage you are talking about.

For me, looks like 27yr old Murray is ageing much faster than 33 yr old Roger, based on the Rankings, GS performance..whatever way you look at. People might comeback and cite the back surgery, but I’m not sure if that is the real reason still.

Probably we can give 2014 a pass for Murray and judge his performance in 2015. He is one player I would like to see compete more in later stages of GS, since his elegant play is next only to Roger and it’s very pleasing to the eyes compared to other top players.

Margot Says:

A very nice compliment for Andy, thank you. And of course I agree! Andy playing freely and happy with himself and his game, is a joy to behold. And, to be fair, he has made the quarters and beyond in the last 3 slams. Am hoping he can regain some of the magic in 2015.
However, back surgery is never trivial. Neutral friends are amazed Andy is playing at all. Clearly losing Lendl, Lendl’s choice btw, coming right at the time he was making a comeback, has derailed him. I think the jury’s still out on Maresmo too.
Whatever happens though, I’ll always be a fan.

Okiegal Says:

I think Lendl was so good for Andy’s mental game. When Andy’s game goes awry……he looses focus and when Lendl was in his box we didn’t see those moments…….but he is back at it again, and he got beat. You can not compete at a top level when your head isn’t on straight. Andy is so talented and its a shame he lets things get under his skin where he can’t play at the level I know he’s capable of. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again…..Andy’s his own worst enemy. C’mon Andy, I know you can overcome this obstacle!!

Margot Says:

Think he needs “tough love.” Not sure Maresmo can give that. She’s too nice! No-one could accuse Lendl of that, lol.

Nirmal Kumar Says:

Margot, I’m not sure about the impact of back surgery. I don’t have an expertise in that area. That’s why it would be wise to give 2014 a pass for Andy and see how he performs in 2015. I thought we should give a pass to Roger last year and judge him in 2014, So far he looked good. I’m expecting the same from Andy too next year.

Michael Says:

Andy has descended to World No.10. A very rapid degeneration indeed. This may spoil his prospects at the US Open where he might meet the top three quite early in the tournament. I do not think Andy will relish the prospect of meeting Novak or Rafa or even Roger in the 4th round or Quarters. Where can Andy resurrect himself is in the American swing. We have to look at his results at Toranto and Cincinnati to evaluate his prospects at the all important US Open. Right now his future looks grim. But you can never discount such a great player. He can raise as phoenix from the ashes any time.

Hippy Chic Says:

The futures grim for Andy,Roger and Rafa apparantly?i guess they should all retire,no point playing anymore?….

Nirmal Kumar Says:

Right now his future looks grim.

Michael, your concern looks a bit exaggerated for me. I do not see that way, but yes I see this year it’s tough for Andy, because once you start having bad results, its’ very difficult to improve on your results mid year. This has happened to Rafa and Roger as well. Even to Novak before 2011.

But we have seen them comeback once the new season starts. I expect the same with Andy for 2015, though I would not be surprised he has a post USO surge, when the top guys sometimes wind down. He can take advantage of it. I doubt he would lose his sublime tennis skills so early and I do not see anyone outside Roger, Rafa and Novak to be better than Andy in overall tennis skill yet.

Josh Says:

From here on out Roger will have a hard time winning another grand slam. Since he has to serve and volley more, due to the fact that he can’t keep up with the long baseline rallies, his game has become one dimensional. These guys know his game plan. His serve is still okay, and it keeps him in matches, but in this day and age, matches are won from the baseline.

It was hard to see Roger lose the match on Sunday. I believe he feels that this was his last and best chance at winning Wimbledon one more time. I just hope he retires on his own terms. He’s still competitive and can go far in tournaments, but father time catches up to everybody.

madmax Says:

In the match Federer showcased his incredible movement and displayed some awesome serving, but Djokovic was just a touch tougher in the end.

Spot on!

Not only that, I do believe Federer has it within him to compete at the highest level and win another slam. I wish all this talk of will he/won’t he? would cease.

We have a great players at the top of the game, Novak, Rafa, Murray, Fed, Wawa and the newbies knocking on the door.

Murray will get his mojo back once he gets into a routine of being with his new coach. The Lendl effect has affected him, of course. It’s transitional times for him. He is too good a player to just be written off.

It makes for the roller coaster ride.

No. We don’t need Jamie to predict anything anymore. He predicted Rafa winning Wimby.

Roger, he makes every fed fan proud.

madmax Says:

Josh Says:
From here on out Roger will have a hard time winning another grand slam. Since he has to serve and volley more, due to the fact that he can’t keep up with the long baseline rallies, his game has become one dimensional. These guys know his game plan. His serve is still okay, and it keeps him in matches, but in this day and age, matches are won from the baseline.

It was hard to see Roger lose the match on Sunday. I believe he feels that this was his last and best chance at winning Wimbledon one more time. I just hope he retires on his own terms. He’s still competitive and can go far in tournaments, but father time catches up to everybody.

July 8th, 2014 at 10:14 am

One dimensional?

Josh? You are kidding right?

There is nothing wrong with serve and volley, federer makes it look easy.

Not recommended with returns from the baseline, I agree, keep the points short and then attack at the net. Nothing wrong with that.

To describe Fed as becoming a one dimensional player is truly embarrassing for you Josh.

Josh Says:

@madmax calm down man. All I’m saying is, he’s BECOMING one dimensional as he’s getting older. He’s not quite there yet, but if he keeps playing until 34 or 35, yes, his game will become more predictable. Why do you think he’s serve and volleying more? Because it’s his favorite style? Please! His stamina isn’t what it used to be. Roger needs to end the point as quick as possible, in order to stay in matches like this.

Brando Says:


I kinda agree with what you are trying to say. Essentially:

The top players know prior to match that due to Fed’s age- he’ll be 33 in his next slam- he really cannot pursue a win in a best of 5 in a long, baseline centred match with them. Not due to lack of skill but the obvious defeater of all:

Father Time.

So they know that Fed will have to rush to net and take alot of risks. Hence, when he does so it’s less of a surprise element and more of a ‘oh I expected him to do so’.

And it’s a very tough tactic to execute with success on a regular basis when the likes of Rafa and Andy possess the passing shots that they have in their locker- most especially in this day and age when the slam surfaces are at the speed that they are.

Fed is an all time legend. That’s not to debate. Yet so are LAVER, BORG, SAMPRAS, LENDL, CONNORS, MCENROE, EDBERG etc etc etc.

How many of those all time legends won a Grand Slam aged 33 or over?


In fact how many players in the last 40 years of the Sport have won a Grand Slam aged 33 or over?


And it’s for good reason:

Father Time.

Tennis is essentially a young man’s sport and in this sport being aged 33 is very, very old. Even being in your late 20’s is considered old by some!

It’s the nature of the Sport that has it as such. Now when you consider Fed’s age and the fact that the competition reads: Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka and then the young guns (Dimitrov, Gulbis, Nishikori) could trouble him as well as experienced, younger pros such as Berdych then really it is quite apparent that Fed needs what happened at Wimbledon in order to get to the final:

Alot of welcome breaks.

After all: This was Fed’s first final in 2 years, during a time which he has won ONLY one mere 500 point title and nothing other than 250 titles beyond that.

No MS series title, no slam final. Why? It ain’t that he ain’t good enough it’s just that the competition is tough out there. And trying to best it in your 30’s in a young man’s game is exceedingly tough.

So the way I see it is:

Never say never. I’d even be glad for him were he to pull it off. But when you look at history, the reality of the competition, the surfaces etc and the fact that really Fed winning a Slam depends ALOT more on who got knocked out early in a GS than his own form then it’s quite clear that chance of a win is really quite slim at best.

Realistically: this USO and Wimby next year are his last 2 chances. After that aged 34 and beyond really for any player is looking like a fantasy dream rather than a genuine hope.

For me though ultimately:

I agree with SKEEZER and say he’s got nothing to prove, 17 is a mighty impressive number and it’s all gravy from here till he waves goodbye forever from the game!

Ben Pronin Says:

Josh, I don’t think Federer’s issue is stamina. He’s not as physical as Nadal or Djokovic or even Murray, but he can last as long as necessary more often than not. It’s an issue of consistency that forces him to end points quicker. Again, he can rally really well, and really long, but not often enough against those 3 guys who can do it all day. I do think Federer should focus more on his point construction. Knowing a player will sneak into net is fine and dandy but if they construct the point in a way that makes you hit a tough or impossible pass, it won’t matter what you know.

I think Federer’s baseline play has become a bit predictable. He likes to go behing his opponents way too much. The reason that tactic is ever effective is because it’s surprising. But if you do it 4/5 times, then there’s nothing surprising about it. And against a guy like Djokovic, who can turn on a dime, stretch his long arms, and generate extreme pace from an outlandish position, it becomes a dumb shot.

I also feel like Federer doesn’t hit his short slice as often anymore. Maybe because players got used to it, but when it’s hit effectively there’s virtually no counter to it. If he can hit it inside the service line, then it’ll draw the opponent to net no matter what and setup and almost easy pass. No one ever wants to come in on not-their-own terms. It’s hard enough coming in off a great approach.

Maybe this is age, or maybe not, but I think Federer needs to relax on his forehand a little. I still can’t believe the forehand he missed at 3-4 in the third set tie-breaker. The ump gave him a point to mini-break back and he squandered it off such an easy shot. There was no reason to press so hard on that forehand. Even if Djokovic got it, it would’ve been a floater. Again, it comes back to point construction. Work the angles, hit deep, and hit it away from your opponent.

Josh Says:

Ben and Brando, very well said!

TennisVagabond.com Says:

Federer’s stamina is not an issue. Novak looked more worn out than Fed who looked fresh from start to finish.

I have seen every top player knackered in matches, bending over begging for breaths and seconds between serves. Never Fed.

Fed goes for short points because that is his style. He has always been more aggressive, and ALWAYS (as Ben says) less consistent from the baseline than Rafa, Novak and Andy.

jamie Says:


i never predicted nadal for wimbledon. i have been predicting nole for weeks and weeks.

jamie Says:

uso winner will be wawrinka or federer. but wawrinka is the most likely.

Top story: Former Champions Murray, Clijsters Awarded US Open Wildcards