Ten years ago Roger Federer was halfway through completing the most dominant four years of tennis anyone had ever seen. Records tumbled and he set in motion new benchmarks for the way the game was to be played.
In 2013 it looked like time was finally taking that inevitable, painful toll on the graceful Swiss who slumped to an unfamiliar world ranking of eighth after several poor losses.
People in the tennisphere were whispering that retirement was around the corner; he was 32 after all and had been at the top of the sport for more than 10 years. These people had seen this familiar cycle play out time and time again with all their favourite champions, and now it was Federer’s turn to watch himself helplessly fade into retirement.
Obviously Federer hadn’t read the script.
His play throughout the past 18 months has been nothing short of a renaissance. Since the beginning of 2014 he has looked like a new player, with a new racquet and new coach.
His net exchange after defeating Feliciano Lopez told us exactly what Federer has in mind:
Lopez: “You were flying all over the court.”
Federer: “We’ve got a few more years.”
Lopez: “F**k!”
Some delightful news for all the Federer fans out there. Not so much his opposition.
As if Federer couldn’t do anymore to keep the purists and old-timers happy with his graceful all-court game, Federer has adopted an ultra-aggressive style of play with Stefan Edberg at the helm. Newfound confidence in the forecourt has made him an exciting champion in this numbing baseline era.
Some of his audacious plays had seasoned commentators furrowing their brows with a look that said, ‘Hey! You can’t do that! Not in today’s game, that’s old school’.
And it is. Half-volley returns and sneaky slice approaches have been the hallmark of Federer 2.0 – the new-old, or old-new player that is causing a lot of headaches for younger foes Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray.
Last week in Ohio the great man romped his way to the title without dropping a set, or even a service game. Yes, that’s right, he went through modern returning greats Murray and Djokovic without a single break of serve. Djokovic didn’t even sniff a break point chance on his serve. Not bad for an over-the-hill 34-year-old.
With the US Open a few days away Federer is poised to once again make a run for that elusive 18th Grand Slam. I can’t believe I’m writing this in 2015, but if last week was anything to go by, you’d be a betting man to think he wouldn’t at least make the final this year.
I for one will be hoping he can go all the way.
Andrew Smyth-Kirk
Roar Guru
The Fed has said that he will be staying on with the aggressive return game he played at Cincy. I think its a good idea. However, it will be interesting to see what the other guys do to combat it now they know he has doen it well and wishes to continue using it. Djoko and Muzza really didn't know what to do with that at Cincy which I thought was strange given both of their serve return quality. Djoko is a quick learner so there is no doubt he will have devised a plan to combat it already. Lets hope they get another chance to play it out.
cynthis gutmann
Guest
Roger is the ultimate no matter whether he is first or last. The man has the class, like Edberg and Sampras, and is true grace in motion. By far, he is the greatest ever.
Bandy
Roar Guru
You could argue that Fed only wins when Rafa isn't around, but in tennis it's you against the field, not one player.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Two evenly matched players like Novak and Roger will rarely play lob-sided sets, given neither player gives the other a glaring weakness. Their rivalry has really come to fruition only of late in my opinion, when Federer started attacking more and the contrast in playing style was elevated.
David Lord
Expert
Andrew is quite right. Roger Federer beat Novak Djokovic 60 76 in the Cincinnati final last year, the only love set among the 121 sets they have played against one another. Federer leads 21-20 in their 41-match head to head history, a magnificent rivalry.
clipper
Guest
A year or so ago, Federer's wish to play at the Olympics looked like it would be a struggle - now it looks like he'll be able to make it and continue after. It will be a sad day indeed when he does decide to retire, at least we can enjoy while it lasts.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Yes You make some good points Andrew, but as Fed said to the media himself, he played a lot more tournaments last year and was burnt out by the the time the US rolled around. He is much fresher this year and carries great momentum into the tournament with back-to-back wins over Murray and Novak. The 5 sets format is his biggest issue - he needs to make the semis unscathed with minimal fuss.
Andrew Smyth-Kirk
Roar Guru
You have to remember he destroyed Djokovic last year at Cincy too. I think he played out the first 6-0 game in their head to head record out (at the time) nearly 40 matches. I think what the Fed has done this year is another example of how talented and what a hard worker he is. These days older players work so much harder that they did before, the like of Lopez, Haas (maybe not so much) and Tommy Robredo are all great examples of this. To even be up there at that age is amazing. The Fed is another level again. The only thing that has to be an issue is winning over 5 sets. Two straight sets is a touch easier than closing out a match 2 sets up in a slam. People have been saying Fed is out of it for nearly five years. 2011 saw Djokovic's massive breakout world number 1 year and it took another year for the Fed to win another slam between his Aus Open 2010 and Wimbledon 2012. 2011 was filled with nothing but "its all over for the Fed". It just shows you how important it is to love your work and be passionate about the effort needed to achieve at the top level. Go the Fed!
danwain
Guest
Great article, can't help but root for him when he is playing, such a joy to watch. I feel he has lost the confidence to win the slams however, can't seem to topple Djokovic when the big games come along. Also interesting that this Renaissance has coincided with Nadal struggling with injuries, food for thought..,
Scott Weiser
Guest
Mr. Clarke, In retrospect, I feel that my critique about the "would" or wouldn't" in the last sentence wasn't necessarily correct. I now see the meaningful use of either word, with those words changing what the meaning would be, so you were perfectly correct there. Best, Scott Weiser
Bandy
Roar Guru
Hi Scott, thanks for the grammar lesson. Admittedly it's not quite as good as I would like it to be so as an aspiring journo this is great feedback. "Were" was what Microsoft Word wanted me to correct it to from "was" believe it or not!
Scott Weiser
Guest
Hi, Good article referencing Roger's joyous and creative applications of new, thrilling techniques and strategies. Perhaps I'm mistaken in what I'm about to write, as a criticism, or critique, but, number one- the author, Hugh Clarke, wrote towards the end of the article "but if last week were anything to go by". . . "were", I believe, is the incorrect word there. I say this, and write this, because I think that "was" should be the correct word in it's place. After all, the word chosen is referencing "last week", which is singular, not "weeks", which is plural. In other words- "last week was", or "the last two weeks were". He's placed a plural reference where a singular would have been in concert. Secondly, and this caught my notice first, at the conclusion of that same sentence he wrote "you'd be a betting man to think he wouldn't at least make the final". It should read "to think he would at least make the final", not "wouldn't". "Wouldn't" contradicts the earlier impression of the article, communicating that smart money would not be on him at least making it to the final. Respectfully, Scott Weiser