To cut the suspense - barring serious injury, yes he will. That much is a virtual certainty. After all, Feds only just turned 27 and he trails Pistol Pete by just one Grand Slam title.
The real question is: by how much will he break Sampras's mark?
Fortunately for us, it's quite easy comparing their respective careers, as they were born almost exactly 10 years apart - Sampras on August 12, 1971 and Federer on August 8, 1981.
Through his first 38 Grand Slam tournaments, Roger has already racked up 13 wins. By comparison, through his first 38 Slams, Pete won 11 of them. Overall, in his career, he competed in 52 majors, and finished with 14 wins - the last coming at the 2002 U.S. Open.
After winning his 5th Wimbledon crown and 11th Grand Slam in 1998, Sampras remained viable at Wimbledon - winning 2 more titles there - but he only managed to win one more title (that final U.S. Open victory) outside the All-England Club.
Meanwhile, Federer remains a viable competitor at all four major tournaments. He's won the U.S. open five times in a row, three out of the last five Australian Opens, and it took the greatest tennis match ever played for Rafael Nadal to finally wrest the Wimbledon crown away from Roger this year - snapping Federer's five-year winning streak there.
Only on the terre battue of Roland Garros has Federer been shut-out. Even then, he has made the last three finals.
Federer has expressed a desire to compete in the 2012 Olympics in London - meaning he's planning to play at least another 4 years, until the age of 31. It's not inconceivable that he can win at least two more Wimbledons in that span - after all, grass-court success seems to be the last to go, as evidenced by Sampras's enduring success on the surface into his late-20's. Notwithstanding Nadal's 2008 triumph, Federer remains the preeminent grass-court player in the world.
For all of his dominance at Wimbledon, he has been just as invincible, if not more, at Flushing Meadows, where he has won 34 consecutive matches. Again, giving Federer two out of the next four U.S. Opens seems to be a conservative number.
At the Australian Open, Federer's brilliance has been somewhat glossed over because of his less-consistent results. But we must take a closer look at his two losses there in the last five years. In 2005, Federer lost 9-7 in the fifth set to a freakishly talented Marat Safin peaking at just the right time. This year, he fell to Novak Djockovic in the semi-finals after being significantly weakend by a month-long bout with mononucleosis.
Otherwise, he swept through the 2004 and 2006 tournaments while losing a total of two sets in each of those years. In 2007, he became the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win a Grand Slam without dropping a set. (A feat since duplicated by Nadal at this year's French Open.) In sum, when he has been healthy and prepared, Federer has been virtually unbeatable Down Under. Still, taking into account the vagaries and quirky things that happen at the year's first major, we can conservatively project that Federer will win at least one out of the next four Australian Opens.
And don't quite count-out Federer at the one major that's eluded him - the French. Unlike Sampras, Federer has been knocking on the door every year for the past five years, and he's clearly established himself as the second best clay-court player in the world, next to the tenacious Mallorcan southpaw. Still, the smart money probably says not to bet that Federer will crack Nadal's indomitable reign at Roland Garros anytime soon.
That brings our total tally over the next four years to five Grand Slams. And remember, those are only conservative estimates. It's easy to picture Federer, with his dedication to training and his love of the sport, playing well into his 30's, as fellow tennis great Andre Agassi did. In fact, Agassi won 5 majors after the age of 29. Of course, Andre was a unique specimen. But still, it's too early to dismiss the notion that Roger could potentially emulate the great American's late-career success.
So, in short, Roger is likely to finish his career with at least 18 Grand Slam titles, and if he stays healthy and hungry, he may even push that total to over 20. Either way, he seems primed on obliterating Sampras's record.
But perhaps the real juicy question is: who would win a match between the two if they could play each other in their respective primes?
(The answer to that one, coming soon.)
The real question is: by how much will he break Sampras's mark?
Fortunately for us, it's quite easy comparing their respective careers, as they were born almost exactly 10 years apart - Sampras on August 12, 1971 and Federer on August 8, 1981.
Through his first 38 Grand Slam tournaments, Roger has already racked up 13 wins. By comparison, through his first 38 Slams, Pete won 11 of them. Overall, in his career, he competed in 52 majors, and finished with 14 wins - the last coming at the 2002 U.S. Open.
After winning his 5th Wimbledon crown and 11th Grand Slam in 1998, Sampras remained viable at Wimbledon - winning 2 more titles there - but he only managed to win one more title (that final U.S. Open victory) outside the All-England Club.
Meanwhile, Federer remains a viable competitor at all four major tournaments. He's won the U.S. open five times in a row, three out of the last five Australian Opens, and it took the greatest tennis match ever played for Rafael Nadal to finally wrest the Wimbledon crown away from Roger this year - snapping Federer's five-year winning streak there.
Only on the terre battue of Roland Garros has Federer been shut-out. Even then, he has made the last three finals.
Federer has expressed a desire to compete in the 2012 Olympics in London - meaning he's planning to play at least another 4 years, until the age of 31. It's not inconceivable that he can win at least two more Wimbledons in that span - after all, grass-court success seems to be the last to go, as evidenced by Sampras's enduring success on the surface into his late-20's. Notwithstanding Nadal's 2008 triumph, Federer remains the preeminent grass-court player in the world.
For all of his dominance at Wimbledon, he has been just as invincible, if not more, at Flushing Meadows, where he has won 34 consecutive matches. Again, giving Federer two out of the next four U.S. Opens seems to be a conservative number.
At the Australian Open, Federer's brilliance has been somewhat glossed over because of his less-consistent results. But we must take a closer look at his two losses there in the last five years. In 2005, Federer lost 9-7 in the fifth set to a freakishly talented Marat Safin peaking at just the right time. This year, he fell to Novak Djockovic in the semi-finals after being significantly weakend by a month-long bout with mononucleosis.
Otherwise, he swept through the 2004 and 2006 tournaments while losing a total of two sets in each of those years. In 2007, he became the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win a Grand Slam without dropping a set. (A feat since duplicated by Nadal at this year's French Open.) In sum, when he has been healthy and prepared, Federer has been virtually unbeatable Down Under. Still, taking into account the vagaries and quirky things that happen at the year's first major, we can conservatively project that Federer will win at least one out of the next four Australian Opens.
And don't quite count-out Federer at the one major that's eluded him - the French. Unlike Sampras, Federer has been knocking on the door every year for the past five years, and he's clearly established himself as the second best clay-court player in the world, next to the tenacious Mallorcan southpaw. Still, the smart money probably says not to bet that Federer will crack Nadal's indomitable reign at Roland Garros anytime soon.
That brings our total tally over the next four years to five Grand Slams. And remember, those are only conservative estimates. It's easy to picture Federer, with his dedication to training and his love of the sport, playing well into his 30's, as fellow tennis great Andre Agassi did. In fact, Agassi won 5 majors after the age of 29. Of course, Andre was a unique specimen. But still, it's too early to dismiss the notion that Roger could potentially emulate the great American's late-career success.
So, in short, Roger is likely to finish his career with at least 18 Grand Slam titles, and if he stays healthy and hungry, he may even push that total to over 20. Either way, he seems primed on obliterating Sampras's record.
But perhaps the real juicy question is: who would win a match between the two if they could play each other in their respective primes?
(The answer to that one, coming soon.)
1 comment:
very nice and interestin'...lookin' forward to the next entry!
- kiCKer -
Post a Comment