Resign or not? A pros and cons

How long should Roger Federer continue to play? As long as his body still carries him? Or is it time to draw a line after he was eliminated from the Wimbledon quarter-finals?

—

Roger Federer fails in the quarter-finals of Wimbledon against the Pole Hubert Hurkacz. The discussion about a possible resignation of the Swiss reignited. Our sports editors also disagree.

Pro resignation – Christian Brägger: “I’ve been wondering for a long time why he’s still doing this to himself. The tennis player Roger Federer is no longer in focus. “

Naturally. No tennis player in the world who still has the quarter-finals in Wimbledon on his racket and legs is allowed to quit. That applies to 997 of the best 1000 experts in the world rankings. But there are limits and exceptions, because as the messiah of this white sport he embodies both to a certain extent: Roger Federer.

–

I’ve been wondering for a long time why Federer, at almost 40 years of age, is still doing this last chapter of his career. And I deliberately don’t want to call it an additional loop, although de facto it is exactly that. So is it really the love of the game and not the fear of the afterwards? The emptiness that inevitably comes and could suck so much out of this (century) athlete after his resignation, possibly exactly what he defined himself and saw?

It is likely that the tennis triumvirate will have 20 Grand Slam titles after Wimbledon. In addition to Nadal, who is still good for five French Open victories, there is also the new “Djoker”, who has long been galloping around in front of the Swiss man’s nose. Which has irritated me a bit for a long time because everyone can see the shifts in power. In the past, the media always talked about the best of all time when they wrote about Federer. Today this label has been removed.

Even worse. Today people speak of the Basler like a third person. Whether the knee can withstand the strain. Whether he wants to travel without the family. Whether he will return. Whether he is starting a new project and applying diligently to it. How he builds. Annoying discussions also somehow always include whether Federer will participate at all or even cancel after victories. Obviously, all of this is a bit of his myth.
But the more people talk about these things, the more it becomes apparent that tennis player Roger Feder is no longer in focus.

So the food for thought is: Why do we tell a footballer who is getting on in years to stop slowly, that won’t do anything anymore?

Why can’t we do that with Roger Federer of all people? Is it really because of its majestic halo, because of its numerous collective gifts to our society? Isn’t he just the athlete you shouldn’t talk about in the middle of nowhere? Yes, that’s exactly what he is. And that is precisely why the following also applies to Federer: Nothing is forever, especially not its own impermanence.

Contra resignation – Simon Häring: “Where do we get this audacity and cheek to believe that we have a say in this very personal question about resignation?”

–

Do you still remember 2013? Roger Federer lost to Sergei Stachowski in the second round at Wimbledon, to Daniel Brands in Gstaad and to Tommy Robredo at the US Open. The following year he reached the final at Wimbledon and had the chance to advance to the top of the world rankings until the last tournament. Can he do it again? Questionable. Is that so important? Not at all.

–

Federer will not stop at the zenith of his creative power – so what? Where do we actually get the right, yes, this audacity, this cheek, to believe, to be allowed to have a say in the question of when to stop? Roger Federer is not common property, it is his career, his life and his – very personal – decision that only concern him and his family. He no longer owes anything. He’s never been.

It was in the summer of 2009, Federer had just won the French Open and outstripped his idol Pete Sampras with the 15th Grand Slam title at Wimbledon, when many said: It couldn’t get any better. If he had stopped then, some of the most beautiful chapters in Swiss sports history would never have been written: the Davis Cup victory, the 18th Grand Slam title in 2017 at the Australian Open, in the first tournament after a six-month break – after a gorgeous final over five sets against Rafael Nadal.

–

Roger Federer won again that summer at Wimbledon and again in Melbourne the following year. Every time afterwards it was said: That would be him – the perfect moment to retire from top-class sport.

Sure, it would be unsatisfactory for him in the long run to retire early. Sure, he would have to go over the books if all of a sudden he were only playing on an outdoor court, virtually in camera. But why does someone have to justify himself all the time who has only just reached the quarter-finals at the most important tennis tournament and is still mobilizing the masses, as Roger Federer still does?

Federer destroys his legacy? That is – with all due respect – ridiculous. The fact that the boxer Muhammad Ali lost his last fights and experienced a dismantling in the “Drama in the Bahamas” in boxing exile has not harmed his reputation. Andre Agassi lost his last match against B. Becker – Benjamin, not Boris. Today nobody cares anymore.

And anyway: the idea of ​​quitting at the climax is a romantically transfigured one. Roger Federer thinks differently: It is more important to him that he can determine the point in time – and that an injury does not force him to do so. He should and will do what feels right to him.

What do you say? Take our survey