Roger Federer is the only male player to rank number one in the world for more than 300 weeks.
He has won a record 20 grand slam titles and played in 31 grand slam finals. He is the only player to have reached 12 Wimbledon finals.
Not bad for a 38-year-old.
But the predominant question asked of Federer is when will he retire?
Federer turned pro in 1998. Federer is currently ranked number three in the world. In 2019, Federer won the Hopman Cup, the Dubai International, the Miami Open, Halle and played an epic five-set Wimbledon final against Novak Djokovic that no one could tear themselves away from. It was arguably one of the best tennis matches ever played.
He is still very much in form and a force to be reckoned with on the ATP tour. But the public continually asks Federer: “When will you retire?”
Is that ageist? Yes.
Is it warranted? No.
Is it appropriate? It isn’t.
(AP Photo/Vincent Thian)
We live in a society where we are preaching about mindfulness – mindfulness to focus on the present without dwelling on the past or trying to predict the unknown future. So why do we think it is okay to project the future on Federer while he is participating in his present state? We all enjoy watching him play. Why don’t we just simply continue to enjoy seeing his incredible sportsmanship play out in front of our eyes? Apparently that’s too hard of a concept to handle.
We are a self-deprecating society at the best of times. We have a fear of failure and we project our fears on those who become easy targets. We are trying to find a level of acceptance with the prospect of Federer retiring now, rather than when Federer can exercise his own choice on the matter. As a human race, we like being in control. We are making peace with the fact that Federer will only win 20 grand slams. We are coming to terms with this reality before it has even happened.
Do you think that is fair on Federer? I don’t.
What has changed for Federer in the last few years? Why now are we asking the retirement question?
He has always chosen what tournaments he plays. He continues to compete in every grand slam. He gets frustrated when he hits his backhand into the net – he always has. He trains daily with his team. He is hard on himself and listens to what faults his team see in his game. He speaks up when he is tired or overworked, but also when he knows he hasn’t played his best tennis.
None of this is unique to the last few years of his career. He has been like this his whole career. Above all, Federer has been meticulously consistent in his approach on and off court since 1998.
So why do we keep asking Federer when he will retire? He lost a five set epic grand final at Wimbledon last year and the first question from reporters was: “have you thought about retirement?” I can confirm that the same question was not asked by anyone who lost the semi-final, quarter-final or in the previous rounds.
How would you feel if you were asked when you would be retiring after playing the most competitive tennis in the world? This question came after Federer reflected on that fact that he is training harder than ever before, out-playing competitors by focusing on strategic play rather than athleticism and keeping his head when times are tough.
(Photo by Clive Mason/Getty Images)
Surely that has to start playing on Federer’s mind. A society doubting his abilities when he is providing proves that it is the case. All athletes go through peaks and troughs. What athlete has been more consistent than Federer for 22 years?
We are imposing our own insecurities on Federer and whether aware or unaware, we are affecting Federer’s mental state in the process. Have we ever stopped to think about what Federer wants in life? He’s only 38. Tennis may not actually define who Roger Federer is.
Tiger Wood’s accomplishments have merely defined only 20 per cent of his life span. But we have defined him based on his accomplishments only over ten years. Federer has another 40-plus years to work out what else he wants to achieve. Why as a society do we only consider these professional athletes during the times that they were number one? We are limiting him to being the GOAT at a point in time that retired at 38. It is all that we can really handle as a society. Anything more would be too complex.
I am asking you to stop focusing on what is next for Federer. He is a pleasure to watch and he is still right in front of you on the big screen winning matches and playing extraordinary shots. Yes, he might not he number one. Yes, he may lose points. But is this any different to any player in the top 30? It isn’t. It is even consistently the case for Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. We don’t ask them the same question we keep asking Federer.
(AAP Image/Tony McDonough)
Federer won’t last forever. But let’s not make Federer feel like we aren’t on his side. Let’s give him every chance he has to keep competing. Let’s believe in him. We don’t want to be the seed of doubt that Federer will come to remember us by. Federer is good enough in our eyes, we just fail to tell him that. Why? Because we want to try and control our future reality, and accepting 20 grand slams now is easier than being optimistic about a future that is unknown.
We will talk about Federer to our kids and our grandkids. Let’s do that with pride, rather than a sense of guilt that we didn’t enjoy him while he was right in front of us. Let’s be present, and let’s admire the GOAT.
A note to you, Roger Federer.
Please don’t retire. Don’t listen to the pessimists. They’ll only look to the past to remember how good you were and fail to tell the stories about what was right in front of them. You don’t need to win every game to be the GOAT. You just need to keep being the tenacious, level-headed, beautiful sportsman that you are. You don’t just influence society in the way that you play tennis, but in the way that you carry yourself, your charity and your sportsmanship. Playing tennis is only a chapter in your life. What you will do next will be what will continue to define you.
I’m so excited to continue to watch you play. I know it will be just as rewarding for yourself and us as a society. A point in time should never define a person and your impact on society will define you in a way that will far outlast your playing career.
Ace
Guest
Who's around that can beat either Nadal or Djokovic on a regular basis ?
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
the previous era was very strong no doubt, and Murray and Stan were better than anyone from this current generation , are they currently anywhere near how good they were some years back definetly not.
JGK
Roar Guru
Murray and Stan are as good or better than at least half a dozen of your list from the 90s.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Ask any of them and I guarantee that’s not what they are thinking at all. Playing high level competitive sport you don’t want to win because all the best players are missing, you want to win because you work out how to beat them. And if you aren’t able to, so be it.
Winston
Guest
But how would you feel if you were any of Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych, del potro, or even Kyrgios? You would want them to drop dead from lightning strike. It’s all about perspective.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
In terms of historical stature you have a great top three, in terms of actual current ability you dont and then it falls off even further. Sampras , Agassi, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Marcel Rios , Pat Rafter, Phillipousis,Muster. A lot of good players in that era, this era has nothing, three greats from the previous era hanging around is all thats keeping up standards.
RooBoy18
Roar Rookie
Hopefully the Fed Express rolls on for 2 more years and adds a couple more slams to his trophy cabinet. Nadal or Djoker are reaching the end of their peak and will never beat that.
Christopher
Guest
Standard so low? Compared to say the late 90s when we had Kafelnikov and Johansson making aus open finals? The standard today is amazing.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
What do you mean “standard is so low”? Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have raised the tennis standard probably higher than its ever been.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
But sport is about competition. Spectator sport is about people wanting to see the best players in the world competing against each other. It’s not supposed to be about equity or equality. It’s supposed to be about everyone pushing themselves to be the best they can be and competing. The best case scenario is that these guys keep playing at the level they are and it pushes some of the younger generation to raise their games to compete. Worst case scenario is these guys end up retiring with no other players close to that level and we just have mediocrity winning grand slams and occupying the top spots in the rankings.
Winston
Guest
I completely agree with you re raising the standard, but they’ve already done that. Their legacy is already established forever. How about letting some others share some of the millions of dollars just to be fair?
Winston
Guest
Nope not joking at all. Nor baiting. Just pointing out some hard truths about how evil the human species is.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
In this current era because the standard is so low and the money is so high players are better off not retiring. I dont agree that players are lasting longer, they seem to get injured a lot more these days. Another reason for a lot of the success of the older players these days is the number of mid 20's players that have become injury basket cases. Its up to Federer to decide when he wants to retire, maybe there are some interests that want him to retire to give players from bigger countries economically grand slams, this isn;t formula One where the nationality determines whether they get a look in. Another great old player was Pancho Segura he was still performing against top players in his mid 40's and won a match in the US open when he was almost 50, he didn't peform that well in his 20's though. So Federer can keep going well into the 40's but winnning majors is another thing. Then players can go on to play in the seniors tour, so they dont have to give up playing til they are really old.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I'm assuming this is completely tongue in cheek because anything else is unthinkable. The reality is that having the guys at the top be so good the others have to lift their level to try and catch them surely helps make a better spectacle than just having an overall lower level of tennis.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The fact is that he's still number 3 in the world, the only two ahead of him are Nadal and Djokovic. No shame in that. He's commented that with time on their side he believes they will likely both finish with more grand slam titles than him. No reason he should retire simple because he has trouble getting past those two. Maybe when he starts getting pushed further down the list by the next generation of players and isn't able to do much about that, then he might be ready to go. But he clearly still loves playing tennis for a living and is doing what he can to keep going for longer.
Winston
Guest
You won't like my response at all. I want not only Federer but also Nadal and Djokovic to retire as soon as possible. You say we preach mindfulness in society. Yes, so let's be mindful to every other player. They've got enough accolades and money and fame, so it's time to share. Think Kei Nishikori, he's already pushed himself so much that he's getting injured. He'll probably end up retiring sooner than these 3. So let's be mindful to Kei and hope that a big rock drops on the trio immediately. I also crave innovation. Having the same guys around for more than 10 years is enough. It's time to see someone else. That's coming from a purely spectator's angle. Then there's equity. It's not fair they are possessed with not only skill but longevity. You've been great, and will all be legends of the game, and this era will be etched into history as a golden era of men's tennis. But it's time to go because I'm sick of you.
matth
Roar Guru
It’s our natural tendency to see public figures as our property. We don’t want them to “tarnish their legacy” by fading away rather than going out on top. But for me, if Federer still loves tennis and still wants to play then he can go on forever as far as I’m concerned. The fact that he might be outside the top 50 one day shouldn’t change how he was viewed at his peak. Who are we to tell him he has to protect his legacy?
Steve
Guest
This is true clipper ... so the continuous uptrend in the avg age of the top 100 I think is super interesting https://claudiucreanga.github.io/data-science/age-male-tennis-players.html
Steve
Guest
You’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said, whether consciously or not I’m not sure. The fact is that the prevalence of >30 athletes at the top of the rankings across sports has been statistically increasing. The 35 number you’re focusing on is meaningless, the point is that as lifespans continue to increase, such situations will become more and more normal. This is all an aside to the Federer point, but I’m not sure why it’s a difficult point to get?
clipper
Roar Rookie
It could be argued that wear and tear is greater now - more demanding play, less serve and volley, therefore longer and more grueling points. Two of the GS's are now on hard court, so they are harder on the joints.