Image: Recine/Action Images via The Guardian UK

Roger Federer is one of my very favourite athletes. And it pained me to watch him lose like he did yesterday at the US Open. This was an off day of unprecedented levels, where the Fed Express showered his opponent, Spaniard Tommy Robredo, with error after error, and threw away break points like a young millionaire might dollar bills. He made it rain free points. Such profligacy is painful to watch from a player always regarded for his clinical gameplay and his guile, grace and finesse. But even the slickest backhand will look terrible if it lands two meters over the baseline. I’ve written before about why people shouldn’t write him off. I still believe that, but his loss yesterday had me thinking what work he’s got to do.

From 2004 to around 2008, Roger Federer was arguably the greatest sportsman on the planet. The tennis world bowed before him. Proclamations came from far and wide over his place in the history of the game -legends like Laver and Sampras called him the best ever; John McEnroe said he was the most gifted player he’d ever seen. Then along came Rafael Nadal, and men’s tennis was a duopoly. Djockovic made it a three man club of excellence and with Andy Murray’s recent efforts, an elite four. In fact if I am brutally honest, Federer’s last year of results barely merit his inclusion here. He is there on reputation alone.

But hasn’t he earned that reputation? Does he not have the right to phone it in now and then? To live off of his hard work and past glories? I think so. We tend to underestimate such dynasties as his when they are in progress. If anything, it’s boring to watch the same guy winning over and over again. It’s only in hindsight that we can appreciate these things, because no streak is going to last forever, no matter how hard it is to imagine Manchester United finishing outside the top four, or the Melbourne Storm missing the playoffs, it’ll happen someday. Just look at this season’s Brisbane Broncos, compared to Wayne Bennett’s Broncos of a decade ago. Federer looked so unbeatable for so long that once he became vulnerable, he was immediately discarded completely.

I can’t believe that people actually think he should retire. At 32, he’s definitely past his prime, especially given the way tennis is evolving into a younger, more dynamic sport, but he shoudn’t have to retire just because he couldntt win 3 grand slams this year. If he chooses to keep going for another whole decade, not winning grand slams (though I’m sure he’s got another one or two in him), yet still thrilling us with nostalgic glimpses of his past grandeur, I’ll be fine with that. I understand that legacies reflect better when players retire at the top of their game, as opposed to scraping the trawler for too long, but Roger is still a dangerous player. Guys still fear to play him. Losing to Tommy Robredo is still an upset. Federer is in what I would call his post-Packers Brett Favre years. And like Favre was by then, he is above repute. His legacy is set in stone.

It’s sad to see once great players playing on longer than they should, no longer able to reach the heights they’ve become accustomed to. It is also sad, however, to see fans projecting unrealistic expectations on older players. Nobody really expected Minnesota Brett Favre to be winning Superbowls. I remember when Andre Agassi retired, and while his decision was based around recurring injuries, I think he probably retired at the right time. He was 36 when he hung up his racquets for good. Federer is 32. The thing is, because Fed was so much better than anyone else in his prime, his slipping back into the peloton is more dramatic. If you look at his career at face value this past season, he’s made a semi and a quarter final, plus a second and fourth round loss. He’s won 74% of games in 2013. These are not actually that bad. Not great, sure. But not bad. And let us not forget just how much money the guy is still making. (Hint: Ka-ching!)

Federer’s implosion yesterday was a mental one, not a physical one. He struggled at crucial moments, trying to recapture what usually comes so naturally to him. He needs to adapt tactically is all. And he can do it. Even yesterday there were Federer Moments to see and behold. It wasn’t as though his technical game has abandoned him - it was more the simple things that eluded him. Over-hitting easy returns; hitting clear winners wide. For so many years he never had to worry about these games, he only had to go out and do his thing and he’d progress to the business end of the tournament where he thrives. Nowadays he cannot underestimate anyone like he’s been doing recently. He cannot be so dismissive. But as soon as he realises this, he’ll be challenging again as always. Let’s not write off the great man just yet.

- Wildcard