He came, won three games and left. The Roland Garros most unusual in the career of Roger Federer has left a river of comments within the tennis world for the peculiarity of his performance, retiring when he had agreed to the second week of competition. He did not want to prove himself in front of Berrettini and told the organization that he had some discomfort in his knee and that, due to his recent operations, he preferred not to risk with the grass tour in a row. We have talked about him with Mats Wilander, extenista and expert of Eurosport, which gives us his point of view of the Swiss’s participation in Paris.
What has impressed you the most about Federer at this Roland Garros?
He has played very few games, but I have seen him serve incredibly well, especially in the match against Cilic and in the first round. He needs his serve, maybe not so much in Paris, but in Wimbledon. In terms of his movement and what he does with the ball he has been impressive. But if I had to say one thing that has impressed me is that he has been able to play until midnight, without an audience in the stands in front of a covered opponent, that he played very well and that he is left-handed, something that is never easy, and Roger Federer did not leave free points on serve.
He knew that, playing that long game, there were options that he could not recover the next day, but he needed to win that game for his confidence. To be there, at midnight, on a cold night, with a heavy track, to do that… People have always seen Federer, but not everyone has realized what Federer has inside. He still has that fire inside of him.
Do you see Roger doing something big at Wimbledon?
Yes, of course! Absolutely. People have to remember that there are not too many herb specialists. There are good players who have no idea how to play on that surface. There are not too many threats to him. Roger is a specialist. I can think of 5-6 players that could put him in trouble, but not much more. At Roland Garros there would be 40 players who could hurt him, but at Wimbledon I don’t see that many.
Do you think he made a good decision by retiring? Would you have done the same in their situation?
I would not have retired because I would have had more options at Roland Garros. At Wimbledon I don’t think I would have had any (laughs). Yes, I think you made a good decision. I think he would have had options against Berrettini. But of course, then he could have met Djokovic and it could have been that the Serb had defeated him in a resounding way and before Wimbledon, he did not want that.
He came to Roland Garros, not with the idea of winning, but with the idea of playing several games. He must have earned more than he expected. But of course, what should he have done? Retiring when he had a match point? He has not played Rome, he has not played Madrid. I needed a victory! What he did is fine with me.
– .
