Why is it that I keep coming across articles that imply that Roger Federer still needs to keep winning one more thing in order to cement his legacy, or that if he were to win the U.S. Open that it would be his biggest win ever? Of course it would be amazing if he could win a 6th title in Flushing Meadows after the incredible year he has had since he was last there, but come on! This is really annoying to me that no matter how much he does, it just isn't ever enough. I mean, I would completely love it if he could win in a couple weeks once again, and every win that he gets just cements his legacy more and more. However, he has already done so much more in the game than anyone else, which he just keeps adding to. Why does he keep needing to do more to prove himself?
The other thing that frustrates me is when people start qualifying different wins, that they don't mean as much because he didn't have to beat one of the top players (such as the fact that Nadal won't be there at the U.S. Open, and that if he didn't have to beat Djokovic for some reason it wouldn't mean as much). So frustrating! It's not his fault if someone loses early or isn't there because of injury. Winning a grand slam is a tremendous feat. Look at all of those who are great players who have never won one. And he has 17 of them!!
I know that people love to argue these topics, and it will continue long after he retires I'm sure, but it does get old after a while that it's just never enough - even after claiming #1 again and winning a 7th Wimbledon. I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does, so since I have my own blog I figured I would get it off my chest.
If you have any thoughts, add a comment!