What do you consider as "longevity" (for slam winners)?

[powerangle]

Some posts in a variety of threads got me thinking.....

What do you consider to be longevity?

Some scenarios:

1) How many years between their first and last slam?

2) Does the player have to contend and be one of the favorites (and going deep) at the majors if he is to be considered as having "longevity"? What if the a player "flukes" his way to two slams, with the slams being 15 years apart?

3) Let's say Roddick wins Wimbledon next year (2011), would you consider him as having longevity (2003 USO and 2011 Wimbledon)?

4) Do you already consider Federer as having longevity? (since there are some posters that knock on him for not having longevity, which of course is lacking compared to some other greats...but then what do you consider to be enough?)

 

[blipblop]

1) you don't need to win slams (or even play in them?) to have longevity imo. but my rough estimate for how long you are on tour? it depends longevity does not have a yes/no answer there are levels and gradients. but i'd say if you are on tour for more than 12 years, you've been around a long time.

2) no

3) yes, roddick has been around a while (and he has been in the top rankings for most of his career)

4) yes

to me longevity means you are trying your hardest for as long as you possibly can to stay competitive. sometimes physical restrictions come into play (career ending injury), a lot of times mental/emotional things make you retire earlier than you normally would have. sometimes you just say "forget this tennis thing"

some players who surely either did NOT have longevity or are not displaying signs of it (i.e. unless they make a massive comeback) in their tennis careers:

-ana ivanovic
-anna kournikova
-nicole vaidisova

i would even say martina hingis. of course they are all women, maybe it would be fair to judge their longevity on a different scale...