#1 ranking

gallery play wrote:Federer can only play on clay for 1 reason: to end the season as #1. But if that is his goal, it will he be his last goal too AND it will confirm he'll retire after this season. 

I'm sure the idea of retiring  as the top ranked player must be incredibly enchanting for him..

Skipping the clay would imo increase the possibilty of him to go on in 2019.

That's very much my thinking. 

Going out on top for a player of his stature is the only way surely.

federer will reagin number 1, but dont think will hold it too long.

still... enourmous feature

legendkillar wrote:

gallery play wrote:Federer can only play on clay for 1 reason: to end the season as #1. But if that is his goal, it will he be his last goal too AND it will confirm he'll retire after this season. 

I'm sure the idea of retiring  as the top ranked player must be incredibly enchanting for him..

Skipping the clay would imo increase the possibilty of him to go on in 2019.

That's very much my thinking. 

Going out on top for a player of his stature is the only way surely.

We see this differently.

I think Federer wants to play on and gather as many trinkets as he can, and go when it's clear he's not going to get any more.

That would preclude retiring as #1.

Regaining #1 however briefly and becoming by far the oldest #1 is a trinket.

I agree with BB.  Federer is smart. On court and off.  He's playing for accolades and for longevity.  Clay won't give him that and last year will have reaffirmed his belief that he did the right thing in skipping the dirt (and any sane person's belief, given what happened).

I'm not saying he will play on clay but if he does, it's a clear hint to me.
He can't control if someone breaks his slam record or not  but he does have the opportunity to wave goodbye in the most majestic way one can think of.

Let's say he takes the 21th this summer, should he be chasing the 22th?
I mean, no one really thinks he'll be winning slams in 2019, or what?
BTW: if Nadal wins just 1 slam this year, the record is probably safe anyway.

However, i hope he'll go on. I'm far from ready for his retirement..

I reckon that the day he believes he will more often than not fail to make the second week of slams, or isn’t pretty confident of winning at least a couple of 500’s in a year he’ll have hit a lack of competitiveness the starts to take the enjoyment out of it for him. Slam seeds will be 16; dropping below that would ram it home. When he turns up with his entourage they can’t be somewhere for just a night.

I still reckon he’ll stick it out until 2020 unless his form and fitness head heavily south before then; but he’s playing it by ear.

barrystar wrote:I reckon that the day he believes he will more often than not fail to make the second week of slams, or isn’t pretty confident of winning at least a couple of 500’s in a year he’ll have hit a lack of competitiveness the starts to take the enjoyment out of it for him. Slam seeds will be 16; dropping below that would ram it home. When he turns up with his entourage they can’t be somewhere for just a night.

I still reckon he’ll stick it out until 2020 unless his form and fitness head heavily south before then; but he’s playing it by ear.

I don't think he will wait for those achievements to dry up to retire. They do not mean anything to him...and his wife as I believe she is the one deciding on his retirement.

Like GP, I don;t think he will be able to win slams in 2019 however he might just enter the slams that year and give it a go...but failing to win any in 2019 will convince him to retire by year end. I have the feeling he won't even bother with USO19. If he fails at Wimbledon..that;s it.....unless his sponsors pay teh price to see him end the season.

We really only know one thing; that’s it’s proven impossible to predict or put limits on his career.

I reckon if we reach agreement on a maximum length to his career, we’ll most likely underestimate him.

How funny would it be if he was still dangerous at 40?

Even though he just won another slam...I find him very fragile. This is the very reason he isn't number 1. It looks like Nadal is getting fragile too....which could make Fed's fortune.

barrystar wrote:@sb I’m prepared to believe that Nadal is a worse loser in reality than he lets us see, but that would be pretty petty. Do you really think he’d make scheduling decisions on that basis when there are so many other considerations such as his sponsors and dragging his team around and changes to his training and preparation to get match fit? I think it’s unlikely.

I am not saying he will do it, but I would not be shocked if he did.  And I would not even view it as being a really bad sport.  I am sure there are egos and mind games going on all the time - not just from Rafa's side.  As nitb noted, Fed pulled out of WTF final vs Nole while I am sure he could have showed up and lost without much harm to his health.  I am sure if they can deprive each other of the extra bit of satisfaction they will be happy to do it.

That said, as you also point out, there are other considerations - sponsors etc - so I do not expect Rafa will pull out of Acapulco.  But I would not be shocked if he did.

legendkillar wrote:Going out on top for a player of his stature is the only way surely.

This is 100% different from how I see it.  To me, one would be a loser to worry about "going out on top".  People age, and with age players ultimately decline - no matter how great they are.  Trying to "go out on top" seems to suggest to me lack of acceptance of that fact.  As if it was somewhat embarrassing to decline with age and one was trying to go before it shows.  I much prefer the way golf handles it - where old champions keep showing up many years after they can no longer compete at the top level.

summerblues wrote:

barrystar wrote:@sb I’m prepared to believe that Nadal is a worse loser in reality than he lets us see, but that would be pretty petty. Do you really think he’d make scheduling decisions on that basis when there are so many other considerations such as his sponsors and dragging his team around and changes to his training and preparation to get match fit? I think it’s unlikely.

I am not saying he will do it, but I would not be shocked if he did.  And I would not even view it as being a really bad sport.  I am sure there are egos and mind games going on all the time - not just from Rafa's side.  As nitb noted, Fed pulled out of WTF final vs Nole while I am sure he could have showed up and lost without much harm to his health.  I am sure if they can deprive each other of the extra bit of satisfaction they will be happy to do it.

That said, as you also point out, there are other considerations - sponsors etc - so I do not expect Rafa will pull out of Acapulco.  But I would not be shocked if he did.

You may be right - we can only speculate, but I think (hope?) it's unlikely.  Sure there are egos and mindgames going on - funnily enough now that Federer has started relaxing a bit more in interviews it is become clearer that was the case when he felt more under-pressure before the AO17 miracle.  I don't think they like winning on a retirement, and I don't think they want to do it to others if they can avoid it - although some have lower thresholds than others, that's life.

I don't agree with the speculation about Fed pulling out of the WTF final - he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to help Switzerland win the DC and they were changing surface to clay the next week.  As it was even with the break he was not firing on all four cylinders at the beginning of the DC Final, losing his first match to Monfils in straight sets.  I'm pretty sure that was a finely judged decision and he appreciated that he could not safely apply himself to the match vs. Djoko and avoid an unnacceptable risk of wiping out the whole DC week.  He has never retired and given three w/o's in his whole career when he has had back problems - he hates letting fans down, he does not do things like that lightly.

I don't think Fed could have made it.  He had to stand in front of loads of disappointed people and tell them he wasn't playing. He'd have chosen to play vs that.  Nadal would have issued an apology safe from his den.

barrystar wrote:I don't agree with the speculation about Fed pulling out of the WTF final - he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to help Switzerland win the DC and they were changing surface to clay the next week.  As it was even with the break he was not firing on all four cylinders at the beginning of the DC Final, losing his first match to Monfils in straight sets.  I'm pretty sure that was a finely judged decision and he appreciated that he could not safely apply himself to the match vs. Djoko and avoid an unnacceptable risk of wiping out the whole DC week.  He has never retired and given three w/o's in his whole career when he has had back problems - he hates letting fans down, he does not do things like that lightly.

Agree. Though I even doubt the DC even had a weight in his decision cause he simply could not move the following day.

Fed will never be shy of playing Djoko. He has not much to prove against him. I am sure having to pull out hurt Federer much more than getting another loss from Djoko. If I remember he was dead knackered in other WTF finals versus Djoko but still went on to play them, including when he could have clinched the year end #1 in 2012.

I hear that Nadal is playing Acapulco.

Clearly the sport has do do something about the ridiculous schedule because he's desperate to play less but has no choice. It's crazy isn't it?


Federer, for Gods sake do what's needed to be done to put this grasping dolt back nearer his place.

Watch this at 50 seconds on and you'll see how Fed can keep such things in perspective (it's in Swiss German with a translation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey3F7bv-EAA

I suspect Nadal has committed to Acapulco for reasons other than ranking - but I do agree that if he doesn't limit his schedule he can't complain about playing too much.

bogbrush wrote:I hear that Nadal is playing Acapulco.

Clearly the sport has do do something about the ridiculous schedule because he's desperate to play less but has no choice. It's crazy isn't it?


Federer, for Gods sake do what's needed to be done to put this grasping dolt back nearer his place.

Nadal is probably just honoring sponsors and contracts (if indeed he is injured.

If not he is obviously desperate to retain number one as long as possible.

Also by choosong to play Acapulco, he may also be calling Federer’s bluff.

It will be interesting to see what Federer does.
I’d love him to go to Dubai and win it!

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:I don't agree with the speculation about Fed pulling out of the WTF final - he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to help Switzerland win the DC and they were changing surface to clay the next week.  As it was even with the break he was not firing on all four cylinders at the beginning of the DC Final, losing his first match to Monfils in straight sets.  I'm pretty sure that was a finely judged decision and he appreciated that he could not safely apply himself to the match vs. Djoko and avoid an unnacceptable risk of wiping out the whole DC week.  He has never retired and given three w/o's in his whole career when he has had back problems - he hates letting fans down, he does not do things like that lightly.

Agree. Though I even doubt the DC even had a weight in his decision cause he simply could not move the following day.

Fed will never be shy of playing Djoko. He has not much to prove against him. I am sure having to pull out hurt Federer much more than getting another loss from Djoko. If I remember he was dead knackered in other WTF finals versus Djoko but still went on to play them, including when he could have clinched the year end #1 in 2012.

I watched his semi vs Stan live, it was extremely physical and went to three sets.
That was the match in which Mirka was hackling Stan, callng him crybaby, Stan was livid, complaued to the umpire anout her... and apparently Fed and Stan exchanged heated words in the locker room and what not...I suppose we’ll never find out what really happened that evening.

But whatever happened, Mirka was not in France for the DC final and Fed and Stan won it.

Botom line, Fed was done both mentaly and physically.

At the time I thought it was poetic justice he gave Nole a walkover esp after that comment in AO 09.

What goes round, comes round.

What comment in AO 09, by whom?

barrystar wrote:What comment in AO 09, by whom?

By Fed:

http://www.espn.com/sports/tennis/aus09/news/story?id=3863682

"I'm almost in favor of saying, you know what, if you're not fit enough, just get out of here," Federer added. 

Well, at least he's consistent, because that's exactly what he did in 2014 - 9 years later still no retirements mid-match and only 3 w/o's.

barrystar wrote:

"I'm almost in favor of saying, you know what, if you're not fit enough, just get out of here," Federer added. 

Well, at least he's consistent, because that's exactly what he did in 2014 - 9 years later still no retirements mid-match and only 3 w/o's.

That’s fine.

However, it’s not fine to tell your fellow pro player “to get out of here”.

Esp if that player was the defending champion scheduled to play in scorching heat, no roof closing for him then...

As you accept, there is more than a kernel of truth in the remark because it is better for someone to make a call on his fitness to play before the match and see it through either way rather than retire when he's being beaten (especially by someone a few years older who is facing the same conditions), and Fed has lived by that rule.  That said, it was harsh and the point would have been better made differently or not at all.

The bad blood was still swishing around after the famous 2006 DC match, "the King is dead", "shut up" and various other incidents.  Even if they don't like each other much now, it's obviously better that they observe the usual civilities, even if that has meant biting their tongues and being 'false'.  I don't require or respect "honesty" if it means indulging dislike in public to no particular purpose.

I don’t think Nole ever said anything to or against Fed in public like that.

The “king is dead” was his mum...and one can’t coose their parents.

Fed was very arrogant on that occasion, the Swiss “shone” through...I didn’t like it in the least.
Esp as at the same time he could not suck up enough to Nadal.

Which is why I still think the fact he had to humble himself and give Nole  a w/o was beautiful poetic justice.

I understand your point of view, and Fed certainly gave Djoko a rough ride to start with - although Djoko did play the goat a bit - but I don't completely agree about poetic justice. 


ps - Fed and Nadal have had more dignified families than Djoko, and you are right he can't help them.. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/novak-djokovic-father-federer-nadal-srdjan

summerblues wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Going out on top for a player of his stature is the only way surely.

This is 100% different from how I see it.  To me, one would be a loser to worry about "going out on top".  People age, and with age players ultimately decline - no matter how great they are.  Trying to "go out on top" seems to suggest to me lack of acceptance of that fact.  As if it was somewhat embarrassing to decline with age and one was trying to go before it shows.  I much prefer the way golf handles it - where old champions keep showing up many years after they can no longer compete at the top level.

How would one be a loser worrying about that? Or another way going out healthy? I had to cut short my football playing days because of injury and I wish I had the choice to stop playing rather than being forced.

It's the very thing I hate about golf is players passed their best who won't even make the final cut. Aside from Watson's heroics in 2009 and Couples annual first round stormers at the Masters, none of the previous champions past 40 ever finish in the top 5 of a Major. For a tour player on the periphery, being in a Major could make or break a career.

I am all for the sport, rather than individual preference.

I believe what NAdal and his camp says when I actually see him pull out when winning.

I am with SB here....quitting when you are on top is more of a loser thing. First because starting playing and quitting should not initially be linked with winning but enjoying the game. You start playing tennis cause you like the game and you quit the tour cause the pain of playing (not losing) is bigger than joy of playing.

The way you go down (start losing) can be as admirable as the way one was at the top.

Sampras did not want to face that decline phase and that preserved his aura for a bit by his then fans....But now they have dried up...he will be known for the guy who "thought he was the GOAT"...but no longer is. .

A bit unfair about Sampras, who had that illness too.  He was gamely struggling on in 2002, and when he pulled that win out of the bag, why not stop then?  Anything else would be an anti-climax.

That last USO was very different to Federers recent achievements. He was really lucky with the draw, especially when Agassi beat Hewitt (who would have destroyed him again). Sampras did the right thing to take the money and run like Hell for the door.

Federer is actually once again the best player on the tour. He should carry on winning things, and when it becomes obvious that's passed he might chuck it in.

Going out on top isn't a loser thing. And when I say top, as in the top of your sport in all areas. See I wouldn't have put Sampras in that bracket at the time because even with his final haul an anointed GOAT was never proclaimed.

I'd never consider Federer say going out on top end of season for example because if his very standing.

There's a huge difference between that and say a smash and grab ala Sampras, Rosberg, Ray Lewis.

Can assure you if Fed retired due to injury the most commonly used phrase aside from GOAT would be "Shouldn't have gone that way"

legendkillar wrote:Going out on top isn't a loser thing. And when I say top, as in the top of your sport in all areas. See I wouldn't have put Sampras in that bracket at the time because even with his final haul an anointed GOAT was never proclaimed.

I'd never consider Federer say going out on top end of season for example because if his very standing.

There's a huge difference between that and say a smash and grab ala Sampras, Rosberg, Ray Lewis.

Can assure you if Fed retired due to injury the most commonly used phrase aside from GOAT would be "Shouldn't have gone that way"

I think how he “goes” it’s really irrelevant.
At least I wil remember him by how he played and “was” before he “went”.

The “going” bit is more for egomaniacs and drama queens, who cares...

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Going out on top isn't a loser thing. And when I say top, as in the top of your sport in all areas. See I wouldn't have put Sampras in that bracket at the time because even with his final haul an anointed GOAT was never proclaimed.

I'd never consider Federer say going out on top end of season for example because if his very standing.

There's a huge difference between that and say a smash and grab ala Sampras, Rosberg, Ray Lewis.

Can assure you if Fed retired due to injury the most commonly used phrase aside from GOAT would be "Shouldn't have gone that way"

I think how he “goes” it’s really irrelevant.
At least I wil remember him by how he played and “was” before he “went”.

The “going” bit is more for egomaniacs and drama queens, who cares...

Of course, but but surely you'll remember how someone "goes", if it's someone who means something to you.

No, not really.

One’s life is remembered by how that one lived, not died (except if they are in a war).

To me, that translates to tennis, as well.

What’s the pont of Nadal going on a high, eg immediately after winning. RG if his whole career is rotten with gamesmanship, bending rules etc.

barrystar wrote:A bit unfair about Sampras, who had that illness too.  He was gamely struggling on in 2002, and when he pulled that win out of the bag, why not stop then?  Anything else would be an anti-climax.

He did well to stop cause this kind of games were getting to an end anyway. They increase the ball size and slowed down the courts so he had no chance to succeed anyway. His beating v George Basle in Wimbledon first round clearly showed that when his serve was returnable he was no threat to anyone.
He left right when the new synth strings were going to stop all the SVers on their tracks.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Going out on top isn't a loser thing. And when I say top, as in the top of your sport in all areas. See I wouldn't have put Sampras in that bracket at the time because even with his final haul an anointed GOAT was never proclaimed.

I'd never consider Federer say going out on top end of season for example because if his very standing.

There's a huge difference between that and say a smash and grab ala Sampras, Rosberg, Ray Lewis.

Can assure you if Fed retired due to injury the most commonly used phrase aside from GOAT would be "Shouldn't have gone that way"

I think how he “goes” it’s really irrelevant.
At least I wil remember him by how he played and “was” before he “went”.

The “going” bit is more for egomaniacs and drama queens, who cares...

Agree, IT does not matter how he goes....as long as he tries fighting till the end.

gallery play wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Going out on top isn't a loser thing. And when I say top, as in the top of your sport in all areas. See I wouldn't have put Sampras in that bracket at the time because even with his final haul an anointed GOAT was never proclaimed.

I'd never consider Federer say going out on top end of season for example because if his very standing.

There's a huge difference between that and say a smash and grab ala Sampras, Rosberg, Ray Lewis.

Can assure you if Fed retired due to injury the most commonly used phrase aside from GOAT would be "Shouldn't have gone that way"

I think how he “goes” it’s really irrelevant.
At least I wil remember him by how he played and “was” before he “went”.

The “going” bit is more for egomaniacs and drama queens, who cares...

Of course, but but surely you'll remember how someone "goes", if it's someone who means something to you.

What do you mean? If he gets beaten by Shapo next time they meet? so what? Fed will have tried to show what he can do against an up and coming youngster at 36 or 37 and if he manages to beat Shapo good on him.

Obe thing for sure is that I am glad he can still lesson Zverev and Kyrios....at 36...lets see whether thoses guy will be able to hold off the youngsters when they get to 35+.

I just think you can't deny someone remembers how someone goes. It does matter. Any sportlover remembers how Ali went. His last few matches are too painful to watch. It's not a shortcoming of his career, but it shouldn't have ended like that. Or like your countryman Zidane, he went out with a red card after he headbutted Materazzi. Not the way a player of his stature should go.

I don't care if he loses to Shapo, drops to #6 or waves goodbye in a second round, i'm sure it will be a worthy goodbye anyway. Or like you once said: "Federer is the kind of guy who's story will have a happy ending". You were right on that, we can already say that, but just the idea of him waving goodbye on top of the ranking? Come on! That would be something.

Gosh - You have a bloody good memory.

Not really leaving as number 1...woudl like a "Sampras" to me and I sincerely would not want him to do the same. I'd rather him to face Nadal on clay at teh FO...once last time, even if that means another loss,

Yeah boxing can be really ugly....But tennis? it's just another tennis match.

gallery play wrote:I just think you can't deny someone remembers how someone goes. It does matter. Any sportlover remembers how Ali went. His last few matches are too painful to watch. It's not a shortcoming of his career, but it shouldn't have ended like that. Or like your countryman Zidane, he went out with a red card after he headbutted Materazzi. Not the way a player of his stature should go.

I don't care if he loses to Shapo, drops to #6 or waves goodbye in a second round, i'm sure it will be a worthy goodbye anyway. Or like you once said: "Federer is the kind of guy who's story will have a happy ending". You were right on that, we can already say that, but just the idea of him waving goodbye on top of the ranking? Come on! That would be something.

To me, that would be very anti-Fed.

He is going to do it low key. As low as he possibly can.

The thought that just came to me is what will his last shot be?
Not that it matters, just curious...

Tenez wrote:Gosh - You have a bloody good memory.

Not really leaving as number 1...woudl like a "Sampras" to me and I sincerely would not want him to do the same. I'd rather him to face Nadal on clay at teh FO...once last time, even if that means another loss,

Yeah boxing can be really ugly....But tennis? it's just another tennis match.

I want Federer to only play Nadal on faster courts from here and get the head to head closer. It was 10-23, now a respectable 15-23. If he closed to within half a dozen and given the clay effect, it would cease to be a conversation piece in debates.

Anyway, I doubt we’ll ever see Federer on clay again.

bogbrush wrote:I want Federer to only play Nadal on faster courts from here and get the head to head closer. It was 10-23, now a respectable 15-23. If he closed to within half a dozen and given the clay effect, it would cease to be a conversation piece in debates.

So you are one of those Fed fans who were always saying H2H did not matter but were secretly bothered by it?

I could not care less about the H2H.  If Fed were to play Rafa 10 more times, I would obviously want him to win 10 times.  But I have no particular desire seeing them play again - even if Fed may now have answers to Rafa's game.  I find Rafa's game repulsive, so the more he loses in the early rounds the better.

My dream, as ever, is to see Fed in Wimbledon semifinal together with three youngsters - the likes of Shapovalov, Kyrgios and Dimitrov.  And this year - unlike in the past - I am starting to think it might even happen.

gallery play wrote:but just the idea of him waving goodbye on top of the ranking? Come on! That would be something.

Oh no, I would utterly hate that.  It would feel like watching a great movie which then cuts off 30 minutes before the ending.  Why would you find it desirable to go out at #1?  What is wrong about decline?  Everyone declines eventually, no point trying to hide it.

Then again, I suppose you guys in the Netherlands are into euthanasia.  Going out at #1 feels vaguely similar, so maybe that is why you like it.

summerblues wrote:...
My dream, as ever, is to see Fed in Wimbledon semifinal together with three youngsters - the likes of Shapovalov, Kyrgios and Dimitrov.  And this year - unlike in the past - I am starting to think it might even happen.

DO you still believe in Dimitrov?

A hopeless case.

No, sadly not.  I have given up on him.  But it is slim pickings when I am looking for youngsters with entertaining game who might have a hope of making SF at W.  I am happy to replace him with someone else in my dream SF line-up, but who?

Perhaps Rublev?  I do not like his game much but it is more bearable than most, and maybe - just maybe - he might have some hope.  I cannot think of anyone else.

Shapovalov and Kyrgios are clear top two for me on that list though.  The two most talented guys and both entertaining in their own ways.  Though I much prefer Shapovalov's game, Kyrgios at his best is pretty impressive too.

Kyrgios did not impress me in the last AO. Good serve but I expected his ground shots to be of higher level.

I am not sure how Goffin lost but him and Nishi can reach a pretty high level....though both are erratic.

Dimi sure he can play well.....except when it matters.

summerblues wrote:

My dream, as ever, is to see Fed in Wimbledon semifinal together with three youngsters - the likes of Shapovalov, Kyrgios and Dimitrov.  And this year - unlike in the past - I am starting to think it might even happen.

That’s a very nice and noble dream...but as you can see very lean pickings among the youngsters, and as always, I blame the DBH (and of course strings/spin).

Not to mention super “fitness”

I hope you can now see why I declared Nadal was the death of tennis 10 years ago.

Tennis world has burned the candle both ways relishing in Fedal rivalry, but I think tennis itself has paid a dear price for it.

We can’t do much about strings, but the courts can surely be sped up, as well as the balls.

If his Majesty Nadal agrees, of course.

Otherwise, another generarion goes dead and buried.

summerblues wrote:

gallery play wrote:but just the idea of him waving goodbye on top of the ranking? Come on! That would be something.

Oh no, I would utterly hate that.  It would feel like watching a great movie which then cuts off 30 minutes before the ending.  Why would you find it desirable to go out at #1?  What is wrong about decline?  Everyone declines eventually, no point trying to hide it.

You make it sound like: the slow decline is always the the much better option, or like Hewitt had the best possible farewell...
It's not like Federer has a long future ahead of him as active player anyway, he does not have the time to slowly vanish does he? 
Utterly hating the idea of him retiring as #1 is way, way over the top. It's nonsense. It's just that we have this curious case of a player who is well past his retirement age, still wins slams. That does not mean he should play another 4 years, so that he proves he isn't too proud to show his decline. Or is he morally bound to do so?

Fed has nothing left to prove, he is too old and successful  in order to finish like Connors or Hewitt. (nothing wrong with those two either...showed how much they loved the game).

Imagine if you were 37 and number one....you would probably be playing your best tennis, and say it honestly - would you retire at that moment?

Fed will play as long as he feels he can win, and probably time his exit around Basel where he started as a ballboy.