“18-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer appears on the cover of GQ Magazine’s April issue. In his interview with GQ, Federer talks his 2017 Australian Open title, retirement, movies, and thank you notes. Some of it, was news to us…”
GQ April Cover Boy #GOAT2.0 looking mighty fine LOLOLOLOLOL….
“It goes without saying (but I’m saying it anyway) that 35-year-olds are not supposed to be winning majors and threatening to reclaim the number one ranking (and, yes, the same accolade extends to Serena). Sure, other players have exhibited impressive longevity; Andre Agassi, to name one, competed into his mid-thirties, and even reached the final of the U.S. Open when he was 35, in 2005 (his opponent, as you might recall, was Federer, who won the match in four sets). However, what Federer is doing is in another dimension. If nothing else, stamina should be a problem for a player his age, but it doesn’t appear to be an issue for Federer: he won three five-setters en route to his victory in Melbourne. Old guys are also prone to slow starts and lapses in concentration, but Federer 2.0 seems immune to that, too: he didn’t drop a set in Indian Wells and hasn’t surrendered one yet in Miami, either.”
Frome the same article, there’s a name for that period… now, what was it.
“here’s a momentary void, which creates opportunities for players who would otherwise be perennial also-rans. The last time the men’s game had this kind of gap was in the early 2000s. Pete Sampras and Agassi were both past their peaks, a probable heir, Federer, was working his way up the rankings, and an opening had formed for players like Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick—sensational players, to be sure, but not guys who were capable of winning a dozen majors and dominating in the way that Sampras had and that Federer soon would. Hewitt and Roddick were transitional figures who took advantage of a generational shift to pocket a couple of slams. Hewitt won the U.S. Open in 2001 and Wimbledon the next year, while Roddick took the U.S. Open in 2003. Four months later, Federer won the Australian, followed it up with victories at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, and the window for players like Hewitt and Roddick slammed shut.”
From the same article…. and it does, quite honestly, cautiously and very seriously, as a long time fan of tennis, make me wonder (or more accurately continues to make me wonder)…..
“Most of us figured we’d seen the best of Federer. He was the oldest member of the Big Four and the first to show slippage…
…Federer is poised to sweep the three most important titles of the first part of the season and has effectively become the number one player in the world again. In reclaiming his place atop the sport, he is totally subverting tennis’s normal pattern of generational succession. Federer was the most dominant player of his era. That era is now ending, but instead of some Hewitt-like figure taking advantage of the void that is beginning to form, it’s a resurgent Federer who is cashing in on it.”
At any rate, watching Federer right now is an almost hallucinatory experience—you can’t quite believe what you are seeing.”