Australian Open 2013: What Novak Djokovic's Third Straight Win Means for Legacy
The current world No. 1 became the first man in the Open era, which began in 1968, to win the Aussie Open for a third consecutive time by beating Andy Murray in four sets in the men's final this past weekend (via Sky Sports News):
Novak Djokovic becomes first man to win three straight Australian Open titles after 6-7 7-6 6-3 6-2 victory over Andy Murray #SSN— Sky Sports News (@SkySportsNews) January 27, 2013
In addition to becoming the first men's player to win three straight, the Serbian star tied Roger Federer and Andre Agassi by winning his fourth career Australian Open championship, the most in the Open era.
But Djokovic has one huge advantage over both Federer and Agassi.
While Agassi and Federer were 32 and 28 years old, respectively, when they each won their fourth career Aussie Open title, Djokovic is only 25 and is just entering his prime. That's why this 2013 Australian Open victory is vital for his legacy.
With one more crown he will have the record for Melbourne Slam titles in the Open era with five, and with two more he will tie Australian great Roy Emerson with the most all time, before or during the Open era.
At that point, there would be no debating Djokovic's legacy in Australia.
Despite breaking through at the year's first Slam just five years ago as an up-and-coming 20-year-old, Djokovic is on his way to becoming the greatest Australian Open champion of all time. Some would even make the argument that he already is the greatest of all-time in Australia having become the first to dominate for three consecutive years Down Under.
Regardless of how you or I view Djokovic's success at the Aussie Open in recent years, neither of us can diminish the magnitude of his sixth career Grand Slam win and what it means for his legacy moving forward.
Follow Bleacher Report Featured Columnist Patrick Clarke on Twitter.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?