What more is there to do if your name is Roger Federer? You seem to keeping on going and winning too. So the Aussie Open in 2009 and US Open of the same year didn’t quite come through, but then it’s not like you gave up and lost easily.

The Australian Open triumph just showed that Fed has a love for the game. He admits it’s not the records of going better and better than Pete Sampras record of 14 Grand Slam titles. It’s his love of the game which keeps him going and his longevity which helps him survive, while others fade away.

He could in the foreseeable future pick up another four or more Grand Slam titles taking him to a minimum of 20.

He’s got 16 Grand Slams to his credit at the moment, including one at Roland Garros. And don’t forget he’s reached 23 consecutive major semifinals. Now that’s consistency with a capital Wow! Hopefully Federer is able to continue reaping the awards as maturity in age creeps in.

The point on age is something which his peers should be very aware and scared of.

Some of the greats of the Open Era won the bulk of their Grand Slams in their 30’s and the Fed looks likely to do so too.

Rod Laver was 31 when he won his second Grand Slam in 1969. Sampras grabbed the US Open in 2002 at 31. John McEnroe made the semis of a Slam at 33, while Jimmy Connors was knocking on the door of 40 when he had his historic run to the last four of the 1991 US Open. John Newcombe won the 1975 Australian Open (against Kiwi Onny Parun) in 1975 and was 30. Ken Rosewall was a finalist at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1974 at 39.

So look out tennis world. The only thing which is stopping Federer at present would be a change in his desire, injury or someone to really take the mantle as challenger. Unfortunately it appears Rafael Nadal may be pushed aside a little by injuries so a potentially great rivalry may have ended prematurely.

And while some may say Federer is boring. The question should be asked. What’s wrong with winning?

Share|