Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Vortex Tour 95, Jun 11, 2011.
Personally I don't think so. He is to stubborn to just retire when he is on top.
All Fed has to do is to win USO next year and he has Sampras beat by 4 days.
And by the way Sampras was only 31 when he won 2002 USO, his last slam. Aggasi was almost two years older when he won 2003 AO.
Ken Rosewall is the oldest GS Champion. He won the US Open at 35 and the Australian Open at 37.
Ken Rosewall was 37 when he won the 1972 Australian Open.
Stupid YouTube video. Can't trust it.
It said Sampras oldes GS at 33......I guess you can't believe everything on the net.
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.
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.
No one is beating that record....if the gameplay is as physical as it is now!
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.
I wouldnt say no One. most TW members think they can beat the likes of Nadal and Federer.
AO not a real slam?
but they're not 37! wait till they get older!
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.
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.
can't really argue with that
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.
Are you Bridgette Wilson? Only someone who is sleeping with Sampras can be this delusional.
If Fed is still winning slams at 33, then I f**king quit
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.
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.
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.
rofl, you just smashed on the OP who failed hard.
Didn't connors win slams at much older age? Or Rosewall?
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.
with recent advances in cryogenic technology, i dont see any reason why fed wont win grandslams for the next few hundred (or thousand) years.
Sorry 76 years.....
Yes, OP needs some tennis history education
Separate names with a comma.