Top analyst on if Roger Federer has another chance of winning a Slam

by   |  VIEW 9099

Top analyst on if Roger Federer has another chance of winning a Slam

Novak Djokovic reached the ninth final at the Australian Open, easily annihilating Aslan Karatsev, who climbed to the semi-final from qualifying. A one-way match, dominated far and wide by the world number one, capable of winning three sets with a score of 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 after an hour and fifty-five minutes of the match.

Only the crumbs for the Russian tennis player, however, he came out to applause for the splendid tournament played. Djokovic instead prepares for his ninth final at the Australian Open, where he will find the winner of the match between the Russian Daniil Medvedev and the Greek Stefanos Tsitsipas.

Novak Djokovic thus wins the ninth final at the Australian Open, where he will go in search of the ninth success that would make him the second player to win the same Grand Slam, behind Rafael Nadal who leads the ranking with thirteen wins at Roland Garros.

For Nole it will be the 28th Grand Slam final of his career, in which he will try to conquer the 18th triumph that would allow him to shorten the distance from the record holder Roger Federer, currently stopped at 20. Finally, thanks to the victory over Karatsev, Djokovic is sure that on 8 March he will start his 311st week as world number one, thus breaking Federer's astonishing record.

Ben Rothenberg is a name that needs no introduction in the tennis world. Now in an exclusive interview with Sportskeeda, Ben Rothenberg has spoken at length about some of his most-favored topics.

Rothenberg on Roger Federer's chance

Let's talk about one of your favorite debates - best-of-three sets vs best-of-five.

On the one hand, I feel if it's best-of-three, Roger Federer has another chance or two of winning a Slam. But on the flip side, if there's best-of-three in Slams, players outside the top 10 or top 20 would have a greater chance of winning.

And that would kind of upset the hierarchy in tennis, don't you think? "I think best-of-three does increase the chances of players in the top 10 and top 20 to win Slams somewhat, but it more particularly increases their chances of winning individual matches.

I think at the same time, if you look at like, during the peak of the Big 4 era, the top four were winning the Masters events with as much dominance as they were winning the Slams. Actually in some windows, there were more upsets in Slams than in the Masters - like Del Potro winning one or Wawrinka winning one or Cilic winning one.

I think in men's tennis, the elite tiers have been so clearly (ahead) that they would have had no trouble in the best-of-three format. And it wouldn't really have changed the history book significantly, I think" - Ben Rothenberg stated.