Roger Federer: Why US Open Performance Means Nothing for Legacy

Think about the career of Pete Sampras for a minute.

Is his 2002 US Open one of the first things that you think about?

It's not for me. Sure, it was a great achievement. He was 31 years old and virtually retired at the time, but his career was just too great to be defined by one tournament.

Sampras is my all-time favorite player. When I think about him, I think about his rivalry with Andre Agassi, his dominance at Wimbledon, or his 14 career grand slam victories. No one tournament really comes to mind.

Now, think about the career of Roger Federer.

Does one tournament come to mind? If it does, it's probably his loss to Rafael Nadal in 2008. It might be the equally epic win against Andy Roddick in 2009.

But in general, it's probably his entire career that comes to your mind, his overall rivalry with Nadal, or his own dominance at Wimbledon.

So for the sake of argument, let's say that Federer claims this US Open championship. It would be his 17th grand slam championship, which would only add to his overall record of 16 (Sampras' 14 is second).

Does that really make him a better player?

No. It really shouldn't anyway.

Federer is on a short list of the best players in the history of the game. Some would argue that he's the best while others would argue players of bygone eras, or even Nadal. That's a debate for another time and place.

Federer certainly belongs in anyone's discussion.

Looking at his achievements, his legacy is set in stone right now.

Granted, if he does something like break a leg and then still manages to win, then it might do something to add to the overall legacy. But what does a normal win do?

Again, it gives him 17 majors. How is this one any different than any of the first 16?

It would be his sixth US Open. See above. Why is this one any more special than the previous five?

There are only a few things that Federer could do that would truly bolster his legacy right now.

One is to win a single season grand slam, or at least hold all four titles simultaneously.

The other is to beat Rafael Nadal in a French Open.

Remember that Federer's lone French Open win came after Nadal had been eliminated. Federer has lost four times to Nadal in a French Open final.

Short of either of those feats, Federer's legacy is just too great to be added to. In other words, he's accomplished too much already to have one achievement add to his legacy in a significant way.

If he loses uncharacteristically early, so what? Sure, it’s not something that he wants, but is that honestly enough to hurt his legacy? Frankly, is it possible for him to do anything on the court that would hurt his legacy?

One way or the other, Federer’s legacy is set. His book has been written. He’s done too much to focus on any one thing.