Roger Federer: What Would a Win at the 2011 French Open Mean for His Legacy?

“Roger Federer is a ‘has been.’”

“Roger Federer’s best days are well and truly behind him.”

“Roger Federer is an antique in modern-day tennis.”

“My grandma can beat Roger Federer with one hand.”

“Roger and out!”

Such is the nature of the preposterous statements floating around the web today.

Agreed, the Swiss maestro has had a mediocre last few months by his standards.

The man who won 11 titles each in 2004 and 2005, 12 in 2006 and has appeared in 22 Grand Slam finals—of which 10 were consecutive appearances—and won 16 of them ever since he burst into the scene with a Wimbledon triumph back in 2003, has just the Australian Open and the ATP World Tour Finals victories to boast of last year.

With just the solitary Qatar Open triumph this year, Federer has gone on to lose thrice to current hotshot Novak Djokovic, twice to arch-rival and World No. 1 Rafael Nadal and lost a game each to Jurgen Melzer and Richard Gasquet at Monte Carlo and Rome, respectively. His win-loss ratio this year stands at 28-7 as he bids to win only his second Coupe des Mousquetaires in Paris later this month.

The 29-year-old is being regarded as too “ancient” to compete with the Nadals, the Djokovics and the Murrays who have the best part of their 20s on their side.

Statistics and age clearly aren’t pals of the man from Basel. But then again, this man is Roger Federer.

He has been there and done that, at least a dozen times.

After an emphatic start to the last season where he won the Australian Open, Federer slid to depths he’d never seen before. At the French Open, he failed to reach the semifinals of a Grand Slam after 23 consecutive previous appearances. At Wimbledon, he didn’t feature in the final for the first time since 2002 and found himself as World No. 3 for the first time since November 2003.

The setbacks at Roland Garros and SW19 brought back whispers he had heard before that he was a goner and he should just give up.

But then again, he is Roger Federer.

He appointed a new coach and hit the courts with a vengeance and an undiminished desire to turn his season around. After the lung infection that bogged the first half of his season, he played continuously for his longest unbroken period without injury or illness in two years.

He was back whacking the ball with the middle of his racket and executing his missile of a back-hand with ease and elegance unparalleled. He went on to notch up 29 wins in 33 matches in seven tournaments after Wimbledon.

He entered the year-ending ATP World Tour Finals as World No. 2 with just two losses since squandering two match-points against Novak Djokovic in the US Open semis.

In the Finals, he rolled over Robin Soderling (who had gotten the better of him at Roland Garros), Andy Murray (who had beaten him in two Masters finals that year), David Ferrer and Novak Djokovic, all without dropping a single set.

He set up a final clash with good friend Rafael Nadal and eventually brought the curtain down on what had been one of the finest seasons by any player in the Open Era. The Mallorcan had won the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open, but just could not find a way past the sheer determination of Roger Federer.

The Fed Express was back and running, full speed ahead.

“Every time people write me off–or try to write me off–I’m able to bounce back,” Federer said after the Finals to the Associated Press, a clear warning to his detractors.

Coming back to the present, Federer finds himself in a similar situation having won just ONE tournament in the season so far. Novak Djokovic is in the finest form of his life and is running away with all the trophies possible, while you can never quite ignore Rafael Nadal when it comes to the French Open.

Federer is again left with the mother of Everest to climb. Clay has always been his kryptonite ever since he started winning Grand Slams. But that’s not to say he has never conquered it.

An emotional Federer lifted the 2009 Coupe des Mousquetaires after seeing off Robin Soderling, the man who knocked out the then-five-time champion Rafael Nadal, in three sets. He’s proved himself umpteen times before and hell, he’ll do it again.

It kind of makes you think that the “most successful tennis player in the history of the game” does not need to prove anyone, right?

The maestro himself nicely put it, “As an athlete, you should be open to criticism, and you’re allowed to be criticized, because not everybody has the same opinion, not everybody likes the same players.” He added, “Today you’re great, tomorrow you’re not, but then you’re great again. It makes for great stories.”

Everyone loves a great comeback, whether you’re Rocky Balboa or Roger Federer. And if Federer is able to win at Roland Garros, it should put to rest the aforementioned absurd claims once and for all.

But as we’ve seen, for Roger, the term “once and for all” is only as far as his next loss. It’s quite ridiculous and, in my opinion, damn right outrageous, but I guess that's just a part of the legacy of a champion that is Roger Federer.