Father Time has caught up with fabulous Federer

What I find difficult about RF's desire to continue to play is the absence and lack of commitment to family time with his wife and kids. Yes, these players have a right to play as long as they wish, however, when they marry and bring children into the dynamics, wealthy athletes seem to feel as though they can raise kids using the funds that they have amassed, when in fact, their children actually need them. He has stated, repeatedly that his family is his first priority, but if we are honest, we see from his actions that this is not true. For instance, he took a few weeks off last April (wedding anniversary period) and upon his return to the tour upon asking about his time away he referred to it as "boring" which was disrespectful to his wife. Also, I honestly think that it was wrong for him to go to Rome after his wife just delivered her second set of twins only 6 days earlier. I also feel as though his desire to commute to various countries with 4 small children (two newborn) and his wife, who is still in the process of healing, post childbirth is not indicative of a man who puts his family first. This is a high risk decision when you consider the health of the newborns and children, who thrive better with stability. The press are too scared of the legend to challenge the detrimental effects of carting family across the globe. We have sat back and watched so many great players self destruct in front of our eyes, causing great hurt to their family members, such as Becker, and Connors. These men, like Roger cannot seem to detach themselves from the glory, the roar (no pun intended) of the crowds, and the celebrity label. At some point we need to ask ourselves if we are part of the problem. I also think that he can never win another major, but his real problem is not just Nadal, but the fact that he can't walk away from the game with grace, like Bjorg, Aggasi, Sampras and the likes.

Just curious: Is your concern the early exits, or that the early exits show a lack of competitiveness? For example, if he got to quarter-finals at Wimbledon, would you think he had as much chance as anyone else in the quarters to take the title? Or do you think the early exits show he starts at a disadvantage against every top 10 player as well?

Roger is the best tennis player I have ever seen his grace and class will never be matched in my opinion I don't care what anyone says win lose or draw he is an absolute pleasure to watch

The commercial realities of sport seem to be to drive homogenisation of the product. Goodness knows tennis has tried - the differences between clay-grass-hard, the balls used etc mean we have nothing like the diversity we once had. Shame really. And yet here we have Rafa and Roger - trying to decide who is the greater is like trying to compare chalk and cheese. Rafa is kryptonite to Roger - age advantage and the big lefty topspin exposing his one arm backhand. If Rafa has a kryptonite it is injuries. It's scary to imagine how many majors he would have won barring injury. But then...it's even scarier to imagine how many majors Roger would have won if Rafa had taken up football instead. Too many "imagine ifs". It is what it is and in this over homogenised one size fits all pander to the lowest common denominator market we live in .... how friggin refreshing it is to have 2 athletes that compete on all the same stages and yet are so incomparable to each other

Federer has beaten Djokovic and Murray on multiple occasions at multiple Grand Slams. Your argument might have some merit if he'd fail to do so, but even with the age difference he beat them. A younger Federer would have a better shot at beating Nadal as well. But who cares if Federer cashed in on a weaker era? Nadal has cashed in on his clay court dominance.

I too do not find anything disrepectful or nasty about Trent's article. He is just stating his opinion on something that is very clear; Roger's current standing in today's tennis and the likelihood of him winning tournaments going forward based on recent/past results. I love RF and will sorely miss the great man once he is gone from competitive tennis. I think he did not deteriorate as much as his opponent improved. Compare today's top players, Nadal, Djoko, Berdych, Murray and top players from 2004~08 in the likes Hewit, Agassi, Nalbandian; the current crop are defintiely the better ones IMHO. They are more powerful ,have better shot making abilities off both sides and better reach. These qualities are no doubt partly aided by the fact that the players are taller and have bigger physique. The aforementioned four players is at least 6 feet 2 inches tall and is significantly taller than Hewit, Agassi or Nalbandian are.

What a disrespectful and nasty article. Of course Fed is in decline, he'll be 33 in August. Let's see where the grinders like Rafa, Muzz and Nole will be then... all long retired! Everyone wrote off Fed in 2012, yet he beat the far-younger Djoker and Murray to win the title. Nowhere in this piece is a mention that Roger is GOAT, the most beautiful player to watch and the man with the most sublime variety in the game. Dismissing a true great like Fed with such bland negativity speaks volumes about the author, and nothing about Federer whatsoever.

Nadal would have dominated Federer whatever the age difference. Djokovic and Murray are more than a match for Federer. Djokovic is the only man to best Federer three times in a major in straight sets. Federer cashed in during a weak era.

If Federer were 5 or 6 years younger he would beat those players. he can still beat Djokovic and Murray in his early 30s. Nadal's titles are drying up and it has nothing to do with a new era.

Anyone remember how close Federer was to going out in the 3rd round of W'12? (yes - his last slam, where he beat both Djokovic and Murray). A couple of points different and he might never have been Number 1 for highest number of weeks, and obituaries would have been piling up even faster in 2013. Similar for Stakhovsky last year - if he had just scraped through that match he might easily have made QF/SF (and he was playing injured too). Clearly the inconsistency makes it less likely he will get another slam or even another title, but recent history suggests he should still be one of the favourites for Wimbledon (certainly got a better chance than Nadal, though Murray and Djokovic are probably the real favourites).

Federer's greatest was down to his domination of a weak era. Once the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray got up to speed the big titles dried up. If Federer was the same age as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray - he'd be lucky to have won 3-5 majors.

Federer is still a great player and is far from done.

What is the purpose of yet another article to this effect? It is hardly a unique and discerning observation to note that Federer is not in his absolute prime and is aging. Whether or not he will win another Major is anyone's guess, I certainly think he has one, if not two, last major pushes in him. I wonder if, relatively speaking, there were this many banal articles about Connors when he was in the twilight of his career.

He has won something of note. A Grand Slam quarterfinal.

Gulbis just won in Nice and is in the form of his life as evidenced by another win over a top 10 player in the quarters. Federer had his clay court season disrupted by the arrival of his twins and was an outside chance anyway. There's a good chance that Berdych would have knocked him over in the quarters even if he'd won. I don't see why a Federer wouldn't be interested in what he can accomplish at this stage of his career. The days of him winning everyone ended in 2008. That was six years ago. Why are people still lamenting it?