Federer has thousands to play for

Stop a man in the street and ask him which tennis player he’d most like to resemble, and 999 times out of 1,000, that man will say Roger Federer.

What is it that Federer does that Joe Bloggs would dearly love to do? Is it his forehand, with the hop, skip and jump into it from inside the baseline? Or his backhand, knee bend and lift from the middle of his stomach? The serve, Sampras-esque but far more languid? Or simply his style, the Nike threads, the easy arrogance, Mr Charming in a walnut shell?

Yet Federer’s greatest virtue is arguably his most underrated. His consistency.

When the player many believe to be the greatest of all time walks onto centrecourt at Rod Laver Arena this afternoon to play Juan Martin Del Potro in the Australian Open quarterfinals, it will be for his thousandth singles appearance on the professional tour, his 31st consecutive Grand Slam quarter-final, and in search of his 2000th set.

Such figures are not achieved by just anyone. You can blow hot and cold as a tennis player, be a flash in the pan, win big and lose big. That’s easy. But to win by the day, week, month, year – that’s reserved for extraordinary people.

And Federer, like, love or hate him, is extraordinary.

As Andy Roddick once said to his long-time nemesis, but for whose existence the American would have won three Wimbledon titles rather than none, “I’d love to hate you, but you’re really nice.”

It was 14 years ago in the Swiss mountains of Gstaad that Federer made his first appearance on the men’s tennis tour. A 17-year-old wild card with a dodgy blonde rinse ranked outside the top 700, he did not make much of an impression, losing in straight sets to the world No.88, Lucas Arnold Ker from Argentina.

Few could have known, watching that ignominious performance, what numbers the formerly tempestuous teen would go on to achieve.

Firstly, Federer took just 24 matches to crack the legendarily difficult transition into the world’s top 100. Somewhat bizarrely, only eight of them were wins.

Six months after that, he had his first final, against fellow Swiss Marc Rosset in Marseille. A year later, in February 2001, his first title, at another indoor tournament in Milan. He’s lifted 69 trophies since that date.

Then there’s the prize money. It took Federer just 137 matches, 78 of them wins, to hit the million-dollar figure, in Rome in 2001. Eleven years later, he has multiplied that figure by 60.

$60,999,408 in match earnings, at the time of typing.

What else? How about wins to losses. Novak Djokovic’s ridonkadonk stats of 2011 may have obscured perspective, going five months without losing a match will do that. But doing it over 14 years?

Federer’s figures read 813 wins, 186 losses, a winning percentage of 81.4. Djokovic’s, by contrast, are at 394 to 111, 78 per cent.

During those 813 matches, the Swiss has won 1999 sets (75 per cent) and 15087 games (58 per cent). Mind-reeling.

The statistically-minded will tell you that Federer’s numbers are now on a downwards slide, despite moving to six year-end titles in London last November. After all, for the first year since 2003, Federer didn’t win a Grand Slam last year.

“How do I feel?” Federer said before playing Bernard Tomic in the fourth round. “I feel good. I feel healthy. I don’t know if I can play another 1,000 though.”

But that’s a statistic Federer doesn’t care about. He does care about the rest.

“The records mean a lot to me especially after the last few years when I realised that I was [up there] with the greatest players of all time. Of course I like to break records – because I look up to people like Sampras, Agassi, Connors and McEnroe, it’s so great to be up there with those players.”

There are a few numbers in particular that Federer has on his wanted list: total weeks as world No.1 (he trails Sampras by a week), for example, and most titles at one event ( he trails Sampras, again by one).

And of course, extending the record he already owns: Grand Slam singles titles.

Could Federer win his 17th Grand Slam, in his 1002nd match, at the age of 30? That really would be one for the history-takers.  We can but wait and see.