Tennis Debate: It is time for Roger Federer to retire?

Another defeat for Roger Federer and this would’ve hurt him. In ten matches against the 31-year-old Tommy Robredo before this, he had only lost a grand total of three sets – just three sets. So immediately the talk moved to whether it’s time for the great one to call it quits. Ashish Magotra and Tariq Engineer weigh in on the debate. Ashish Magotra: Is it time for Federer to go? No. But it is time for the Swiss Master to reinvent himself…. remember Sachin Tendulkar’s quote: “I can’t play the same way at 32 as I did at 16.” Federer needs to change the way he approaches the game – add a few new tactics. Something, anything to put the opponents off their game. Everyone knows his game well and they now, after many many years have figured out, how to beat it. Tariq Engineer: You make a good point about him needing to reinvent himself. The real question is can Federer reinvent himself? He has only ever played one way - the Federer way. He has always played tennis with a ballet-like quality, able to hit shots that other players just can’t see, forget execute them. He doesn’t know any other way and at 32, it will be very, very difficult for him to break his game down and build it up again. Against Robredo, he was missing the line by 10 feet, shanking shots like my 60-year old uncle at the club. It was like watching a Bizarro version of Fed. Plus, the competition has caught up with him and passed him. Guys like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are better than he is now, and the players don’t fear him anymore. He has won just one tournament so far this year. ONE! You know the last time that happened? It was 2001, the year he won his very first tournament. Should he retire? That’s for Federer to decide, but his days as an elite player are clearly done. [caption id=“attachment_1081057” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Roger Federer walks off the court after losing to Tommy Robredo. AP[/caption] Ashish Magotra: When I say reinvent, I don’t mean he has to break down his game completely. Rather, he needs to find a way to augment the old strengths with news ones. Djokovic, for example, had everything going for him, he had all the shots, he was was world number three but he realised that he needed to work on his fitness. And see how that’s worked for him. Nadal – you can’t touch him on clay – but he has kept working on his serve and that’s a weapon for him now. Even Andy Murray has found Ivan Lendl to help him become mentally tougher. It’s the little things but they are working. Federer needs to figure out where he can get better – one obvious department is the backhand. Tariq Engineer: The guys you mentioned are young and hungry. Djokovic was tired of being the third wheel behind Federer and Nadal. And when Djokovic had the edge on Nadal, it forced the Spaniard to up his game too. Murray didn’t want to be loser his whole career. The key here is those three guys are still in their 20s. Federer is 32. That is ancient for a tennis player. And he is already has 17 Grand Slams. He has already held the No 1 ranking for longer than anyone in history. What’s his motivation here? Ashish Magotra: They are young and hungry. Yes. They are. But 10 months back, Federer was the world number 1. Yes, this isn’t the Roger Federer we know. Yes, John McEnroe sitting in the commentary couldn’t believe his eyes. And perhaps neither could Federer. The motivation for him has to be to show that he’s still got it. They’ll all say he’s history until he finds a way to win again. This could be just a trough… we shall wait for him to rise again Tariq Engineer: He may have been world no 1 ten months ago, but he is world ranked 7 right now and that’s the number that counts. He lost in the second round at Wimbledon - which he has basically owned - and now the fourth round at the US Open where he won five straight titles. He has also lost to a couple of guys ranked outside the top 100. This is not one-off or a sudden lapse. This is a trend. I’m going to steal a description from an ESPN.com story I read earlier today about Federer: In his great novel, “The Sun Also Rises,” Ernest Hemingway captured precisely what has happened to the 17-time Grand Slam champion. “How did you go bankrupt?” asks a character. “Two ways,” comes the reply. “Gradually, then suddenly.” Federer has won just two Grand Slams since the start of 2010. That was the gradual descent. What we have seen lately is his sudden fall into the realm of mortals. In a way, it mirrors what is happening with Tendulkar, who hasn’t made a Test century for almost two years. Eventually, age ensures all sporting Gods fall from grace. Ashish Magotra: But then again – what holds true for normal athletes, doesn’t quite hold true for the likes of Tendulkar and Federer. The greatest athletes are different for the rest of us. Their bodies respond differently to training, their brains process things faster and better. Can you really put things beyond them? You might say that ‘age ensures all sporting Gods fall from grace’ but who decides Federer has fallen from grace? Losing is never kind to the vanquished – it fills one with self-doubt and grinds away at the confidence. That is definitely happening to Federer. It is a period that he needs to believe he can fight his way out of. He still has fight left in those 32-year-old legs. That much he must believe. IF he has no belief then he must walk away – as you say with grace. To borrow a line from the brilliant piece on Federer by David Wallace Foster in the NY Times in 2005, “Genius is not replicable. Inspiration, though, is contagious, and multiform — and even just to see, close up, power and aggression made vulnerable to beauty is to feel inspired and (in a fleeting, mortal way) reconciled.” When Federer has inspired so many over the course of a great career, there’s no reason to to believe he can’t inspire himself to great heights once more. Tariq Engineer: I honestly hope you turn out to be right. Tennis is better when Federer is Federer. He elevated everyone else around him and gave us beauty in a sport that is all about brute power. But the history of the game is stacked against Federer. Tennis players in their 30s tend not to be great. And the guys he has to go through - the Djokovics and Murrays and Nadals - these guys are super talented and want to build their own legacies. One rival might have been overcome. But three? I just think it is a bridge too far - even for someone as great as Federer. But if he gets a bit of luck, finds a bit of confidence, and maybe one or two of the other guys are upset victims like Nadal was at Wimbledon this year, then who knows? As you say, the greatest are different from the rest of us. And no one in tennis has been greater than Federer. Let us know your thoughts in the comments section