At most one GS this year.  If that does not happen Federrer will be too "old" to win against young guns like Djokovic, Murray, Gulbis,  and Juan Del Potro.   They will rule the Grand Slams, though Nadal may win few more too.

Pete will keep his #1 spot. Had he an Roger been the same age, it would have been a war every match. Now Roger is the old man.

I believe that Federer personally wants to win at least one French Open before he retires and has an eye on at least equalling the Wimbledon and US Open men's singles slam record of 7 each ( he is 5 each to date ). This would give him a total of 18 grand slams. If he wins the 2009 Australian Open that would then be 19. He may then ( pending on fitness levels, personal desire, and avoidance of illness / injury ) target the outright Wimbledon and US Open records of 8 each - what a momentuous achievement that would be! That would then be 21 slams in total. Personally, I think he will get a minimum of 16 before he retires and have always felt he will end up with 17. However!! To be effectively then unarguably called the greatest male tennis player of all time with say 17 slams, he really needs to win the French to silence the doubters.   

as long as he gets 1 french open title, no other titles matter.  cement the leagacy with the french this year, roger!

Roger will surpass Pete's record. He will win two to four more slams, most likely Wimbledon and possibly at the Open as well.  Tennis players are measured, both pro and con, against their contemporaries.  Tennis people who have lived enough years to watch a few generations are in the best position to speculate who may have bested whom.  I tend to think Pete would have had his way with Roger on the faster surfaces.  Pete's serve and his second service in particular cannot be underestimated.  Roger would likely have beaten Pete a few times, particularly on slower surfaces.  Up to this point Roger has had the benefit of only one rival of historical consequence (Nadal) and he is a more or less a clay court specialist.  Had Roger been ten years or so older, he likely wouldn't have half as many slams (if he had to play Sampras, Agassi, Becker et al. in their prime). Now that Novak and Murray are ascending it will be more difficult.  In the 40 years I have been watching tennis the greatest player I have seen over the longest period is 'rocket' Rod Laver.  The statistics back up what my own eyes told me. He won complete grand slams six years apart. And ... as a 'professional' he was not allowed to play in the slams during those six years in between; the prime tennis years of his life. In short, he would have won 2-3 times as many slams if he had.  That would have been 22+ instead of 11.  Sure, you can argue this player (Gonzales) or that player (Hoad, Tilden, etc.) was better on a given day.  However, NO one was as good for as long.  I truly believe Laver would have won 25 or more slams had he not been barred from them during his six prime tennis years.  I mean, he won a full slam as a rookie amateur then again as soon as he was allowed back as a pro.

Federer will likely beat Sampras' record, but it will not make him the greatest of all times. That crown is with Bjorn Borg, who had won 11 grand slam titles when he retired at age 26! He did that while battling Connors, McEnroe, Nastase, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Vilas etc. Borg made tennis a popular sport at globale level, and thanks to him these guys are cashing in today. The only way Roger Federer can argue greatness over Borg is if he wins the French, since Borg never won the the US open.

I believer Roger will definitely surprass Sampras' record.Probably 3-4 more majors.I have been watching tennis for 30 years.I have seen them all.Roger is the best I've ever seen.Not the greatest yet.But certainly the best,most complete player. A tremendous athlete with all the shots.Some much variety in his game without any weaknesses.It will be difficult,winning more majors though.Rafa,Murray and Djokovic are younger,hungry and improving.I think Murray will win his first major in Australia this year.Rafa will be king of Roland Garros and clay for at least several more years.Remember he's only 23 and improving his forehand,serve and volley.I don't believe Roger will ever win the French.Rafa will continue to stop him unless his knees give out or something.Roger still has great opportunties at Wimbledon and The Open.He has a few problems though.He will 27 this year.That's middle-aged in tennis.Also,he lost more matches last year than he had in the last 3 years.Players are not quite as intimidated as they were 3-4 years ago.Irregardless of what he says,I don't think Roger is quite as confident against the top guys as he used to be.I say him winning no more than 1 slam a year now,if that.Djokovic is still a bit of a question mark.But I think Rafa and Murray will be sharing major titles in the coming years.Roger is still an unbelievable player.But he's slowing down a little bit.

Sorry Jean-Pierre.I have to disagree on Borg being the greatest of all time.My opinion is that a player needs to win all four majors to achieve that.I was a huge Borg fan.Very disappointed to see him retire @26.But,Borg never won the Australian or the Open.Even when the Open was on clay.But I agree with you.Federer winnning the French is a big if.I think Rafa will win 3-4 more French Opens at least.

I think Roger will get 15. His great will and fight will get him past Sampras. He is already greater than Pete who just did not have clay court ability to equal Roger. Federer is the complete player and sportsman. Do you ever remember Sampras in his prime admitting that the player who beat him in a tournament just played better? No way! It was always centered on himself not playing his best. Three cheers for Federer's grace in defeat!!!

If it wasn't for Rafa, Roger would already have probably 17 or 18 slams.Pete didn't get #14 until he was past 30 yrs old. ROGER STILL HAS 3 MORE YEARS, AS AT LEAST THE #2 PLAYER IN THE WORLD,IF HE DOESN'T REGAIN THE #1 SPOT THIS YEAR.Only Nadal constantly keeps up with Roger and if he gets upset,then you pretty much have to call any slam for Federer...

He's great. He'll get 3 or 4 more but not this Aussie open '09. It belongs to Rafa.

rafa all the way.. Roger can not win another slam if Nadal is playing..From now onwards he ll be scared to participate if he Rafa is participating in any tournament... Then it ll be like he will not be playing in the same continent where rafa was playing.. He ll just be an escapist smug and end with 13 grandslams and he ll retire as early as 2010 Jan citing some injury only he knows..

Rafa ll go on to become the highest GS and highest tournaments winner... These pete fans, lever fans and Roger fans ll bang their head..

I doesn't matter how many more slams Roger might or might not win unless one of them is the French. Without it he, like Sampras, can never be considered the greatest of all time. PERIOD! So even if he wins 10 more slams - if one of them isn't the French (which would take a miracle while Rafael Nadal is still breathing) he'll be just another great player who couldn't win all four. To consider ANY player the GOAT that hasn't won all four is patently absurd. Winning three has been done repeatedly (with many players winning multiple times on one given service or another) so beating Sampras' record is only part of it - that person (who ever he is) HAS TO WIN ALL FOUR!! Unless or until that happens, Rod Laver still deserves the title.

what counts in tennis are the number of Grand Slam titles and the period being No 1.Federer has already 13 and I think its no doubt that he will win some more, because he said planning to play for another 6 or 7 years, its possible for him to win one major per anno, thus 19 or 20. About the no. 1 position, he needs about 50 weeks to be longer on top than Sampras with i think 286 weeks. Why i think it will be no problem for him, because of the style of play of Nadal. He needs a lot of energy and power to play his game. in grand slams he needs a couple of hours or more to win a match against a nobody. At the age of 25 or 27 it wont be possible for him to win matches that way, like Hewitt. I cant imagine to see Nadal playing saccessful tennis at the age of 30

roger will win 2-4 more with 80% certainty. there is some chance he will only one or none.

the better questions is how many will rafa win?  we know now he can win on all surfaces. I believe if his body holds up it will be 15.

roger will win 2-4 more with 85% certainty. very little chance he will win more. slight chance he might win only one or none. the big question is how many will rafa win. my best guess is 15.

Fed should win the Open and the Championships at least once more each. Anything beyond that would be a surprise.

Oops, should have added that I agree - the Rocket would have won at least 20 slams had he not been prevented from playing them during his prime. Hard to digest that he won GRAND slams right on each side of his 'ban' from them, like seven years apart!

I never thought I would enjoy tennis so much as I have since Roger came along,he has brought tennis back to the way it should be played with perfect follow through on each shot and excellent foot work, smoothness and quickness , how he controls himself when things go down for a while then turns it around . Roger will win the French one day and more grandslams because he enjoys the game so much and as long as he continues to enjoy the game he will be there on top. Keep on believing Roger and thank you.

He is definitely slowing down but I think hell beat the alltime record!