Originally Posted by wangs78
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.
Nice post. Yeah something like that will stand the test of time. Rosewall played till his 40s and ended up with 23 combined majors (including the pro majors from his era). That's crazy longevity that would be damn near impossible to replicate today. I think if Fed can reach 20, and I think he probably will considering he will play at least until 2016, he can really put the open era record out of reach. He'll be 35 by then and will def be at the end of his career.