Yeah, but, who would be?! That we had these four all at once was something quite remarkable. Of all the greats that have come before - who Fed, Nadal and Djoko are all arguably better than - there was rarely four of them at their peak at the same time.
)
I think the 4 finalists have about 60 Grand Slam titles between them (only counting the singles) it is unprecedented.
Between Sampras/Agassi peak and Federer/Nadal peak, there was a definite dip: looking at who was no. 1 in that interregnum, it switched hands regularly between the likes of Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, and a late-career Agassi. I put Murray clearly above all of those bar Agassi.Yeah, but, who would be?! That we had these four all at once was something quite remarkable. Of all the greats that have come before - who Fed, Nadal and Djoko are all arguably better than - there was rarely four of them at their peak at the same time.
That's not to disagree there is/will be a dip, but that happens from time to time. Early 00s weren't a hotbed of supreme tennis, were they? (Question, not rhetorical!
Venus *only* has seven.
There's one record Fed doesn't hold right now that he might fancy having a crack at, which is the oldest male player to win a slam. Ken Rosewall holds that one - he was 37 when he won (I think) the Australian. So that could keep him motivated for another couple of years.
There's another record up for grabs: the first man to have won every grand slam more than once. Thanks to Nadal's dominance on clay, everyone else is kind of short on French Open titles. Had Nadal won yesterday he would have grabbed that record. But since he hasn't, if Fed or Djoko win the French again, they'll get it. Murray needs to win it twice as he has no Roland Garros trophies to his name yet.
Rod Laver won all 4 twice - and he did it both times within the calendar year, in '62 and '69.
Oh... I've seen that record mentioned a fwe times in the papers recently. Could it be the first man in the Open era? When did the Open era start?
Yes, he'd be the first to win all 4 majors twice in the Open era - although Laver is still the only male player to do the calendar year Grand Slam in the Open era, in '69. His first Grand Slam in '62 was as an amateur. To do it once was a big deal, but to do it again 7 years later - 5 of which he was banned from playing the 4 majors after turning pro (though for good measure in that time he won the 'Pro Grand Slam' in '67) was just phenomenal. This is why many still regard him as the greatest ever - he ended up with 11 grand slam titles, but if he'd been able to play the majors in the 5 years he was on the pro circuit (which age-wise were the prime years of his career, from 23 to 30) he'd surely have won many more.
He wasn't wrong tho!
It is totally Serena to make it all about HER though. She brought that point deduction on herself out of sheer petulance by breaking her racket after losing her serve - which was nobody's fault but her own, it was an unforced error. The umpire then had no choice but to dock her a point, but then she wouldn't let it go and ramped it up by calling him a thief and a liar. She was totally out of order - and it was all because she was losing (badly) on the night when in her mind it was supposed to be all about her. Again.
So says Serena's coach:
If he copped to it then fair play, but then where does that leave Serena?
She’s not at fault but the rules still stipulate a code violation is due. But sportspeople get wronged all the time. A pro like her should keep their cool and carry on.
'will there be a boy born who is greater than His Highness Federer'
