Australian tennis legend Ken Rosewall was just two months shy of his 40th birthday when he reached the last of his Slam finals – the 1974 US Open – by far the oldest in the sport’s history.
For the record “Muscles” was beaten in straight sets by American leftie Jimmy Connors who was only 21.
Rosewall is also the oldest to win a Slam at 37 and 74 days when he beat compatriot Mal Anderson (36 and 306) in straight sets at the 1972 Australia Open – the oldest Slam final in history.
Today Roger Federer is 36 and 70 days, and at the weekend defied Father Time yet again by whupping the world number one Rafael Nadal 6-4 6-3 in 70 minutes of supreme Fed Express tennis at the Shanghai Masters final.
Federer broke Nadal in the opening game, broke him twice in the second set, and lost only eight points on his own serve with 20 aces.
It was a case of the good guy dismantling the sour Spaniard, who begrudgingly shook Federer’s hand, and the central umpire.
But the story is the longevity comparison between Ken Rosewall and Roger Federer.
It’s virtually impossible to fairly compare the two as it’s not a level playing field.
Rosewall was one of the early signatories to Jack Kramer’s professional troupe between 1957 and 1967, making the Australian ineligible for Slams which were exclusive to amateurs.
As a result Rosewall missed 40 Slams and it would be reasonable to assume he would have won at least 15, taking his career tally to 23 – Federer holds the world record with 19.
But there’s no argument both have been, and are, superb ambassadors for their sport, as well as sharing two of the sweetest swinging single-handed backhands in history.
There’s also no argument over their longevity.
Federer reckons his current crack form is due to missing the entire clay court season.
“And I’m very very happy about everything,” Federer added.
Can he keep making Slam finals?
It would be a brave punter to back against it.
But to beat Ken Rosewall he must keep playing at the Shanghai level for another three-plus years.
And to put Rosewall’s career in perspective he was in four losing Wimbledon finals with 20 years between the first and last.
There were 19 years between his first Australian Open win and his fourth, 15 years between his two French Opens, and 14 years between his two US Opens.
He’s still the youngest Australian Championship winner at 18 years and two months, and the youngest between 1953 and 1955 to reach all four Slam finals.
Roger Federer proved he’s capable of anything by winning his 19th Slam at Wimbledon in straight sets over Marin Cilic at 35 years and 341 days.
But to match the Australian, Federer will be 43 at the French, 42 at both the Australian and Wimbledon, and just 37 at the US Open.
As I said, it would be a brave punter to bet against it.
tsuru
Roar Rookie
David, I think that's a bit of a stretch to call Nadal sour and to describe his handshake as begrudging. I just had another look at it and it looked to me like a standard loser's handshake. Clearly he wasn't leaping around with joy, but he wasn't begrudging either. And in his press conference afterwards he volunteered that Federer "played too good." I have always been a great admirer of Rosewall, but I agree with others above that it's a stretch to assume he would have won 15 more majors. If you are assuming that there was no pro tour then he would have had the rest of the Kramer troup to beat in those years - Sedgman, Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Olmedo, Trabert - as well as the depth of players around who didn't join the pro tour.
James F
Guest
Have to agree with Clipper - a huge assumption to make that Rosewall would have won "at least" three-eighths of all the Slams that he missed as a result of turning pro. A minimum of three Slams every two years, a ratio beyond him both before and after his ten-year hiatus from the big courts? A stretch, to say the least. Presumably, the suggestion is that Rosewall would have dominated Laver, Hoad and Gonzales during the missing decade. We are also asked to accept that Emerson would have won almost none of the twelve that he accumulated during the absence of the above mentioned trio, that Santana would have been a non-factor, that players as accomplished as Cooper, Fraser, Stolle and Newcombe would also have failed to have their moments against Rosewall during the period in question. By all means, let's sing Ken's praises as a borderline all-time top tenner (Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are clearly ahead of him by most analyses and there are decent arguments to be had in favour of folk such as Perry, Gonzales, Hoad, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl and Agassi as well). His longevity, as you point out, was a thing of wonder. I'm not convinced, though, that he merits quite the assumptions that you make about him. I'm reasonably happy with the idea that Federer's Wimbledon triumph in July, on the doorstep of his 36th birthday, compares more than adequately with Rosewall's win at 37 in an Australian Open field of vastly inferior depth. If he does something similar next year, that might reasonably be though to eclipse even Ken's astonishing achievements of 1974.
Johnno
Guest
In the women’s game, Tracey Austin was something else as a youngster... But she was burnt out by a very young age to. Muscles does deserve more acclaim... Laender Paes, is up there in longevity stakes...
Remo Shankar
Roar Pro
No one will ever be as good so young and as good so old as Rosewall - a freak who deserves more acclaim in the pantheon of greats.
Kurt
Guest
Even more impressively, it was one month short of her 50th birthday, rather than 40th.
theanhuat
Guest
....players should not be forced to play ANY tournament, no?....
Arnav
Guest
I am not sure why the exhausting schedule is not looked into. Roger's "Tennis Age", i.e. the number of days he has played competitive matches might be far more than any other player. This has taken a big toll on his health and longevity.
Brainstrust
Guest
They are in their early 20's, and the highest grand slam position is QF for kyrgios. In Kyrgios case he did achieve that a while ago so he should have improved.
Johnno
Guest
Navratilova won a us open mixed doubles one month short of her 40th birthday. I think Feds body is now to injury prone and weary to push 4 more seasons to 40. In saying that fed would like another crack at Olympics in 2020 as he never has won singles gold medal..
Johnno
Guest
Connors was 39.
theanhuat
Guest
....longevity-wise, the GOAT might not emulate Rosewall but should play into his early forties if he remains injury-free....
theanhuat
Guest
....do not agree with statement 'At the moment there are no top class players in the mid 20’s.'....Sascha and Kyrgios?....
theanhuat
Guest
....agree with all statements....
Brainstrust
Guest
The question is that Federer had that dry period with Nadal,then Djokovic then Murray taking over. Take the 1970 US open Rosewall beat John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Stan Smith in their mid 20's in his mid 30's. At the moment there are no top class players in the mid 20's,
clipper
Guest
It's an interesting question. Jimmy Connors should also be included in the longevity stakes - making the US open semis at 40 and playing until 45, as well as holding 109 titles - still the record and one that doesn't look like being broken. Rosewall was no doubt one of the greatest and disadvantaged by turning pro for much of his career, but it's hard to assume he would've got another 15 GS titles - it was quite a competitive era, with Laver Gonzales etc - who knows what might have happened if the split hadn't occurred. Federer is prone to more injuries now - he wasn't at his peak at the US and it might be getting harder to come back as quickly. It's an amazing level he's playing at when fit and on fast courts - we can only hope he continues for as long as he can - as you say both are superb ambassadors for Tennis.