Vortex Tour 95
Rookie
Personally I don't think so. He is to stubborn to just retire when he is on top.
Sampras oldest GS champion at 33 can Fed do it?
- Thread starter Vortex Tour 95
- Start date
dirtballer
Professional
Ken Rosewall is the oldest GS Champion. He won the US Open at 35 and the Australian Open at 37.
Vortex Tour 95
Rookie
Stupid YouTube video. Can't trust it.
It said Sampras oldes GS at 33......I guess you can't believe everything on the net.
Sorry
Vortex Tour 95
Rookie
The AO was not a real grandslam back then. Most of the top ten would not even to bother to show up.
Borg only appeared once
Connors only appeared twice
McEnroe I believe rarely showed up.
But you are technically right.
Breaker
Legend
Yeah it's possible I'd think most likely at the US Open like Sampras where if he plays a great attacking match there's little anyone could do to stop him. He relies more on movement than Agassi so a slow court slam in Australia would be extremely difficult without a great draw. He's already achieved all he could at the French and for Wimbledon his window is closing especially with the slower courts. On the old grass he could have gotten away with simply serving through the latter rounds and attacking the net but with the heavier reliance on baseline play it's a slam for the young legs now.
So 31/32 at US Open is my bet.
So 31/32 at US Open is my bet.
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
No one is beating that record....if the gameplay is as physical as it is now!
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Rosewall Just a Babe vs. Gore
Modern day, yes Rosewall was oldest to win a major. But in 1909, Arthur Gore of the UK won Wimby at age 41. Murray in 2028 or so? Maybe he will have matured by then.
Modern day, yes Rosewall was oldest to win a major. But in 1909, Arthur Gore of the UK won Wimby at age 41. Murray in 2028 or so? Maybe he will have matured by then.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
I wouldnt say no One. most TW members think they can beat the likes of Nadal and Federer.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Sampras last Slam was at the 2002 US Open, he won it aged 31, so not exactly 33, and a 2-year difference is huge in tennis terms. At 25 you could be at your peak while at 27 years of age you're already slower.
Vortex Tour 95
Rookie
Back then it wasn't even a good tournament .
When you have the top players not even showing up how can you call it a slam?
Imagine of Nadal, Fed, Djokovic, amd murray all skipped a slam year after year because it wasn't worth their time.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
can't really argue with that
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
The only way a 40 year old could win a slam now is if they changed the racket regulations so everyone had to use an 85" racket or smaller or a wooden racket. In that case Sampras would unretire and win WImbledon.
N
nikdom
Guest
Are you Bridgette Wilson? Only someone who is sleeping with Sampras can be this delusional.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Australian Open still a Major
The Australian Tournament which started in 1905 was first a 'Major' in 1924 (International Lawn Tennis Federation made it so late 1923).
Yes, it was weak from 1972 to 1982 but there are ebs and flows with every tournament - it doesn't take away from it the fact that it was a 'Major' (Grand Slam tournament is only been a phrase since the late 80's - before then people called them majors). Wimbledon was weak in 1972 and 1973 (hardly anyone could come because of politics) - you wouldn't exlcude those winners would you?? The French Open had times when it wasn't the strongest. They still retain the status.
The Australian Tournament which started in 1905 was first a 'Major' in 1924 (International Lawn Tennis Federation made it so late 1923).
Yes, it was weak from 1972 to 1982 but there are ebs and flows with every tournament - it doesn't take away from it the fact that it was a 'Major' (Grand Slam tournament is only been a phrase since the late 80's - before then people called them majors). Wimbledon was weak in 1972 and 1973 (hardly anyone could come because of politics) - you wouldn't exlcude those winners would you?? The French Open had times when it wasn't the strongest. They still retain the status.
Last edited:
Vortex Tour 95
Rookie
An entire decade is some "eb"
But it really was nothing for about 30 years which is an even bigger "eb".
Today however it is a true grand slam.
But it really was nothing for about 30 years which is an even bigger "eb".
Today however it is a true grand slam.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Chances are Federer isnt likely to be on tour for 4 more years but you never know. He is still getting deep into the slams and a favorable draw can still win him slams. This is not to say that he cant get hot for two weeks and win it on his own accord.
Should he stay on tour, it isnt entirely beyond Federer to win a slam at 33.
BigForehand
Semi-Pro
rofl, you just smashed on the OP who failed hard.
Didn't connors win slams at much older age? Or Rosewall?
gpt
Professional
Which thirty years is that?
Winning a major in 2012 will be much more difficult than winning one in 2002. I mean c'mon, Albert Costa...Thomas Johansson...Lleyton Hewitt at Wimbledon?
Federer will need to play back-to-back amazing matches at the end of a major to do this, but he seems less consistent at this now.
Federer will need to play back-to-back amazing matches at the end of a major to do this, but he seems less consistent at this now.
Can't think of a name
Rookie
with recent advances in cryogenic technology, i dont see any reason why fed wont win grandslams for the next few hundred (or thousand) years.
Vortex Tour 95
Rookie
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, OP needs some tennis history education
Similar threads
