History To Be Made

Unless we get quite a big shock and David Ferrer wins the Australian Open then whoever else wins will create history in their own way.

If Novak Djokovic wins the Australian Open then he will become the first player to win three back-to-back Australian Open having won in 2011 and 2012.

If Roger Federer wins he will equal Roy Emerson's record for five Australian Open titles.

If Andy Murray wins he will become the first player in the Open Era to win his first and second slam consecutively. He would also pass Fred Perry's record of 105 (I think it is) wins in slam matches to become the most successful British player in slams in terms of matches won of all-time.

Djokovic frigthens me. I fear he is unstoppable. I'm not sure if I would watch a Federer-Djokovic final, better use my time wisely and do some work.

Would Ferrer be the oldest first slam winner?

CAS wrote:Would Ferrer be the oldest first slam winner?

Yea tats a good thought, I wish Ferrer springs a surprise here today,Almagro match should have given him a new lease of confidence. I am fully behind Ferrer today. Vamous Ferrer.

However CC you forgot this slam and the record will still be marked * for obvious reasons.

CAS wrote:Would Ferrer be the oldest first slam winner?

There's at least one other who was even older. Gimeno won his one and only Slam at the French in 1972 when just two months short of 35 Don't know of any other first-time winners who were more ancient than that.

Wasn't Ivanesivic older?

Was the early 70s a weak era? What a 35 year old winning a slam, I mean everytime federer wins a big tournament we hear how deficient the tennis players of today are how could they get beat by a broken down federer who is practically wearing a RF monogrammed adult diaper?

I think Ivanisevic was 29 if I remember right

wouldn't it also make him the oldest ever 1st time finalist?

A tad irrelevant in any case as Ferrer won't be reaching the final.

not as irrelevant as him winning the whole tournament.