View Single Post
Old 01-09-2013, 05:11 PM   #165
wangs78
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,805
Default

On the men's side, I think you need 22+ Slam titles to really put yourself out of reach. Think about it. If you get a once every 30-40 year talent who is absolutely dominant - he can definitely win 3 of 4 slams per year for every year of his prime period. Suppose a male player has 5 prime years of performance (say age 23-27), that gives him 15 Slams already. Then say for another 5 years (say when he is 21-22 and 28-30) he wins an average of 1 Slam a year. That gives him 20. Federer could have surpassed this already if not for (1) existence of Nadal (-5 FO titles) and (2) some close nailbiters that he could easily have won (Wimby '08 and USO '09 and who knows had he beaten Djokovic in those two USO SF's I think he could have taken at least one of those two USO finals against Nadal). That would already bring him to nearly 25. It would also mean that he'd be nearly undefeated in GS finals. A very tall ask and practically impossible. But that's what I think would be a record impossible to break. About 22+ Slam titles.

And don't get me wrong, I think Fed's 17 and counting tally will be extremely hard to break as well, but do I think someone will break it someday? Yes. If Fed gets to 22+ Slams, I would likely be willing to bet the house that we won't see anyone break that ever.

Last edited by wangs78 : 01-09-2013 at 05:15 PM.
wangs78 is offline   Reply With Quote