Some records that could be broken in 2017

[Carol]

His knee was never a big issue as he never needed surgery. Look to guys who had surgery if you want to mourn their loss.

And here you come with something silly like always. Many times the knees injuries doesn't need surgery which is the last option, same like shoulders and wrist depending the kind of injury and it's very obvious that the treatment worked very well on him

 

[Kieran]

Rafa's problem has always been maintaining the top spot in the rankings, and all that it entails. As remarkable a player as he is, it is amazing that he only has 141 weeks at #1 - that's less than half Sampras and Federer, and just a little more than half Lendl and Connors. Consider, also, how he got his weeks in terms of consecutive "reigns" - he had three periods of 39 to 56 weeks, where Roger, Novak, Sampras, Connors, and Lendl all had periods of at least 100 weeks.

As many have said, Rafa is best when he's behind. He seems to thrive on climbing, not as much on coasting.

It's difficult to scan these things so simply. I mean, we've all made sure that everyone knows how feeble the tour was during Novak's last reign, and it wasn't too hot when Roger was claiming cheap slams at the start, either. The time I would most fault Rafa is that when he got to the top in 2013, the effort seemed to burn him out, and he's never been the same since.

In 2009, he left the tour injured and so was obviously overtaken, dropping down to #3, and then to #4, while he was trying to come back, and in 2011 he was unfortunate that Novak went Nova, and destroyed him. When Roger faced a fellow great at their peak, it was Rafa in 2008, and Rafa destroyed him then.

I'd also say that the period between 2008-2013 was as competitive as tennis gets in this modern era, Rafa had to dispatch Federer and then instantly face peak Novak, and then try pull him down too. That was a great period and Rafa was the most successful then. He'd spent a lot of time as a greenhorn being Roger's only rival, and that was tough on a kid, though he developed his mastery of Federer in those years. I wouldn't be too hard on Rafa in comparing him to modern greats, in terms of dominance. Yeah, the stats don't add up, but I'm sure he'd have loved a few seasons alone with the Roddicks, Baggy and Gonzo while he was at his best, or else with the numberless, faceless nobodies Novak has been filling his boots on over the last few years...

 

[El Dude]

Well, I think you misunderstand - I'm not bagging (or baghing) on Rafa, just pointing out the stats. But let's look at when he lost the #1 ranking (three times, 2009, 2011, 2014) to see what was going at the time.

In 2009, he was upset by Soderling then missed Wimbledon, which Roger won, taking back #1. So he lost a ton of points (-1,640 at RG, -2,000 at Wimbledon) and wasn't able to catch up later in the year, which is traditionally his worst period.

Then in 2011, he was simply outplayed by Novak, who beat him again and again in finals. As with in 2009, he lost the #1 ranking at Wimbledon, although this time he lost in the final to Novak.

I like your observation about 2014 - it really does seem he burned himself out by the huge effort it took to do what he did in 2013. But once again, the culprit was Wimbledon, when he was upset by Nick Kyrgios in the 4R.

So in all three cases, he lost the #1 ranking after Wimbledon - which is also the tournament that got him to #1 for the first time, in 2008.

 

[Front242]

His knee was never a big issue as he never needed surgery. Look to guys who had surgery if you want to mourn their loss.

And here you come with something silly like always. Many times the knees injuries doesn't need surgery which is the last option, same like shoulders and wrist depending the kind of injury and it's very obvious that the treatment worked very well on him

Yes and only because your post was a million times more silly. A guy with supposedly bad knees from 2007-2012 (total bs btw) but wins 9 (!) slams within that time period. Give me a f*****g break. You answered your own silliness btw. If the treatment worked very well on him then he didn't have very bad knees did he?

 

[Front242]

Rafa's problem has always been maintaining the top spot in the rankings, and all that it entails. As remarkable a player as he is, it is amazing that he only has 141 weeks at #1 - that's less than half Sampras and Federer, and just a little more than half Lendl and Connors. Consider, also, how he got his weeks in terms of consecutive "reigns" - he had three periods of 39 to 56 weeks, where Roger, Novak, Sampras, Connors, and Lendl all had periods of at least 100 weeks.

As many have said, Rafa is best when he's behind. He seems to thrive on climbing, not as much on coasting.

It's difficult to scan these things so simply. I mean, we've all made sure that everyone knows how feeble the tour was during Novak's last reign, and it wasn't too hot when Roger was claiming cheap slams at the start, either. The time I would most fault Rafa is that when he got to the top in 2013, the effort seemed to burn him out, and he's never been the same since.

In 2009, he left the tour injured and so was obviously overtaken, dropping down to #3, and then to #4, while he was trying to come back, and in 2011 he was unfortunate that Novak went Nova, and destroyed him. When Roger faced a fellow great at their peak, it was Rafa in 2008, and Rafa destroyed him then.

I'd also say that the period between 2008-2013 was as competitive as tennis gets in this modern era, Rafa had to dispatch Federer and then instantly face peak Novak, and then try pull him down too. That was a great period and Rafa was the most successful then. He'd spent a lot of time as a greenhorn being Roger's only rival, and that was tough on a kid, though he developed his mastery of Federer in those years. I wouldn't be too hard on Rafa in comparing him to modern greats, in terms of dominance. Yeah, the stats don't add up, but I'm sure he'd have loved a few seasons alone with the Roddicks, Baggy and Gonzo while he was at his best, or else with the numberless, faceless nobodies Novak has been filling his boots on over the last few years...

Rafa only destroyed him in RG 2008 and Toni Nadal himself said Roger did not play well so you can really say Roger destroyed himself. Their other matches in 2008 were all extremely close. Roger also had mono that year and couldn't train properly in the off season and therefore entered the year without his usual prep and with an energy sapping virus that lasted half the year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa's problem has always been maintaining the top spot in the rankings, and all that it entails. As remarkable a player as he is, it is amazing that he only has 141 weeks at #1 - that's less than half Sampras and Federer, and just a little more than half Lendl and Connors. Consider, also, how he got his weeks in terms of consecutive "reigns" - he had three periods of 39 to 56 weeks, where Roger, Novak, Sampras, Connors, and Lendl all had periods of at least 100 weeks.

As many have said, Rafa is best when he's behind. He seems to thrive on climbing, not as much on coasting.

It's difficult to scan these things so simply. I mean, we've all made sure that everyone knows how feeble the tour was during Novak's last reign, and it wasn't too hot when Roger was claiming cheap slams at the start, either. The time I would most fault Rafa is that when he got to the top in 2013, the effort seemed to burn him out, and he's never been the same since.

In 2009, he left the tour injured and so was obviously overtaken, dropping down to #3, and then to #4, while he was trying to come back, and in 2011 he was unfortunate that Novak went Nova, and destroyed him. When Roger faced a fellow great at their peak, it was Rafa in 2008, and Rafa destroyed him then.

I'd also say that the period between 2008-2013 was as competitive as tennis gets in this modern era, Rafa had to dispatch Federer and then instantly face peak Novak, and then try pull him down too. That was a great period and Rafa was the most successful then. He'd spent a lot of time as a greenhorn being Roger's only rival, and that was tough on a kid, though he developed his mastery of Federer in those years. I wouldn't be too hard on Rafa in comparing him to modern greats, in terms of dominance. Yeah, the stats don't add up, but I'm sure he'd have loved a few seasons alone with the Roddicks, Baggy and Gonzo while he was at his best, or else with the numberless, faceless nobodies Novak has been filling his boots on over the last few years...

2008 was the year when Fed had Mono. You cannot just remember Rafa's knee issues and ignore other people's health problems. :nono

 

[Front242]

^ Oh yes, they can. They're Nadal fans. Roger had some of the worst losses of his peak years in 2008 and it's no surprise as mono saps your energy and ended Ancic and Soderling's careers and ruined Roger's off season prep and training during the first half of the year.

 

[El Dude]

We're all lucky that Roger wasn't more impacted by mono than he was. It really can be debilitating.

 

[Carol]

His knee was never a big issue as he never needed surgery. Look to guys who had surgery if you want to mourn their loss.

And here you come with something silly like always. Many times the knees injuries doesn't need surgery which is the last option, same like shoulders and wrist depending the kind of injury and it's very obvious that the treatment worked very well on him

Yes and only because your post was a million times more silly. A guy with supposedly bad knees from 2007-2012 (total bs btw) but wins 9 (!) slams within that time period. Give me a f*****g break. You answered your own silliness btw. If the treatment worked very well on him then he didn't have very bad knees did he?

Now it's my turn to say give me a f*****g break. Anyone with mono can't even to lift the racket, they can't even walk more than a few steps because they are feeling TOO TIRED so what kind of mono he had playing tournament by tournament at that level when ALL the doctors say that the first thing they have to do is to REST otherwise they can get a lot worse and with a bad consequences? when did he get worse? when he was resting ,are you kidding me? and who is answered his own silliness btw? ONLY YOU!
'Go to another dog with that bone'....:lolz::nono

 

[DarthFed]

Mono affects everyone differently. It was a situation where he had it, and played through it only to find out later it was mono. It was out of his system early in the year but it clearly affected him as his game was terrible for his standards for pretty much the entire season.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

As Novak winning 7 more Slams, he wouldn't be the first player to do it - win 7 or more Slams after their 30th birthday. That would be Ken Rosewall, at least in the Open Era (Bill Tilden won NINE, but that was in the 20s and 30s). Still it seems very, very unlikely in the 21st century, but you just never know. But consider that is the career total of John McEnroe after an age in which many greats had already retired.

Open Era players with multiple Slams after turning 30:
7 - Ken Rosewall
4 - Rod Laver
3 - Andre Agassi
2 - Jimmy Connors, Stan Wawrinka, Roger Federer

Last three titles Agassi won were 2000 AO, 2001 AO, 2003 AO. He is born in April 1970. So he was 29 at the time of his 2000 AO win. Am I missing something?

I don't think Rosewall and Laver can really be used as a comparison, as the physical demands would have been so different back then. If Djokovic was to win another 7 titles, it would be unprecedented in the modern era. Even for Nadal to win another 4 would be remarkable, given what other great players his age have managed to do.

Now, of course we are in an era where players are successful at a greater age, so we can't quite rule Nadal out from equalling the slam record yet, at least if he can keep up his AO 2017 form. But for Djokovic to do it would be truly remarkable.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Can we not have a Fedal argument on every thread? It's getting a bit boring ... Fed did have mono, although clearly not a severe case, and Nadal fought with his knees for years. Perhaps some are too young to remember or have chosen to forget.

Finally, I never quite buy the "weak era" argument. I tend to think that there were a number of actually great players who were kept down by Roger's success in the mid-2000s. I.e., if he'd been less successful, we might now talk about what a strong "era" it was.

I'm not a statistician or probabilist, and haven't thought about doing any modelling. However, you have a fairly large sample size (with all tennis players), and normally you would expect the overall quality of players to improve over time, rather than diminish. So when you see a situation where there is a clear outlier (i.e., Roger, who was clearly a lot better than the peers of his generation), the more likely explanation is that they are simply extremely good, rather than that the whole field has miraculously become worse.

But of course it is a point you can endlessly discuss, and never conclusively prove, so the discussion is a bit useless.

 

[El Dude]

mightyjeditribble, you have been a welcome voice of reason to this community .

And you're right - I got it wrong re: Agassi. I frequently make such mistakes, mainly because I do a lot of research and don't always double-check. But it is usually herios who catches me in the act.

And I agree that Rosewall and Laver are not good comps because the 70s were quite different - but that's part of why I wanted to list them, just to point out improbable for a player to win 7 Slams after turning 30.

I also agree that Roger's generation looked weak partially because Roger was so good. I did an analysis at one point as to how many Slams Andy Roddick would have won if you replace Roger in their Slam matchups with who he beat, and i came to something like 5 or 6. Now I don't really see Roddick as a 5-6 Slam talent, but he certainly could be a 3-4 Slam talent. Same with Safin and Nalbandian, maybe Hewitt.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Actually 5-6 doesn't sound that wrong for me for Roddick.

If Fed hadn't been around, Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Nalby might have been seen as quite a strong generation.

 

[Front242]

And here you come with something silly like always. Many times the knees injuries doesn't need surgery which is the last option, same like shoulders and wrist depending the kind of injury and it's very obvious that the treatment worked very well on him

Yes and only because your post was a million times more silly. A guy with supposedly bad knees from 2007-2012 (total bs btw) but wins 9 (!) slams within that time period. Give me a f*****g break. You answered your own silliness btw. If the treatment worked very well on him then he didn't have very bad knees did he?

Now it's my turn to say give me a f*****g break. Anyone with mono can't even to lift the racket, they can't even walk more than a few steps because they are feeling TOO TIRED so what kind of mono he had playing tournament by tournament at that level when ALL the doctors say that the first thing they have to do is to REST otherwise they can get a lot worse and with a bad consequences? when did he get worse? when he was resting ,are you kidding me? and who is answered his own silliness btw? ONLY YOU!
'Go to another dog with that bone'....:lolz::nono

As Darth said earlier, mono affects everyone differently so do us all a favour and do some research before making an even bigger fool of yourself. Soderling was all dizzy at Wimbledon 2011 and could barely play (lost to Tomic) and yet he continued playing till November in Bastad where he won the tournament absolutely destroying Berdych 6-1 6-0 (!) in the semis and then Ferrer 6-2 6-2 in the final. After being so amazing that tournament, a few days later he could barely get out of bed and never played another match his whole career. It comes and goes but when it's in full swing you can barely do anything. Here's are two articles that will hopefully educate you.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/20/sport/tennis/tennis-mono-federer/

Interview after Soderling's loss to Tomic at Wimbledon where he had just contracted mono.

"Soderling confirmed that he had struggled after feeling unwell for a couple of days before the match. The Swede felt sick and dizzy as he lost the opening set of their third-round match in only 17 minutes

"I didn't feel so good on court. I wasn't moving well I was misjudging a lot of balls. " said Soderling.

"I felt sick, I felt weak and I felt dizzy. It just wasn't a good day."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/13916151

 

[Kieran]

Sheesh, the Fedfans are complaining about how injuries and ailments have afflicted his career? :lolz: :lolz: :laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing

Can we not have a Fedal argument on every thread? It's getting a bit boring ... Fed did have mono, although clearly not a severe case, and Nadal fought with his knees for years. Perhaps some are too young to remember or have chosen to forget.

Thank you MJT, another welcome post. Mind you, the Fedal wars are boring at first, but you soon develop a taste for them and get into longterm battle strategies, develop a system for taking notes, and generally lay awake at night waiting for the enemy to slip up (which they always do), and actually you develop quite a taste for them. :snicker

I never bought the idea that Fed's generation were so good, but he was just so much better. Remember, Rafa was a clay-court player back in 2004, and within a year - while not being a factor at any slam off clay - he became Federer's only rival. He turned 19 in mid-2005. So all of Federer's generation were not only being beaten by Fedferer at his peak - but a semi-developed greenhorn was scooping up the rest of the prizes, and there were winning basically nothing.

And I never bought Roddick as a 5-6 times slam winner, either. As Mats once said, great players find a way. With Roddick, I loved him, and he was brilliant in a couple of Wimbledon matches against Federer, but he was also an example of a player who found a way...to lose. He wasn't a great player, but he'd have to be if he was to win 5-6 slams against any opposition, even if Federer was absent...

 

[Front242]

Roddick would clearly have won multiple Wimbledons if not for Federer.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roddick would clearly have won multiple Wimbledons if not for Federer.

Dude.. I know you are not American but Andy's tennis talents are not held in the same legendary status as a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier. Those players had all the strokes whereas Andy had the big serve that was predictable and an occasional big forehand if his opponent's hit it short..Well that's my opinion.

 

[masterclass]

Novak and Roger each have a chance to be the first to win the double career grand slam in the Open Era at Roland Garros this year. It's interesting how the 3 players (+Rafa) have blocked each other from winning more than one at their weakest major over the years.

Of course Laver did it, but once in the Open Era, and once prior in 1962. I believe we are only talking Open Era achievements.

For that matter, though Rosewall does have 7 wins at 30+, he won 4 majors in the Open Era, his other 3 wins 30+ were Pro Slam wins prior to the Open Era. So Rosewall and Laver are tied with wins only in the Open Era.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Roddick would clearly have won multiple Wimbledons if not for Federer.

Dude.. I know you are not American but Andy's tennis talents are not held in the same legendary status as a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier. Those players had all the strokes whereas Andy had the big serve that was predictable and an occasional big forehand if his opponent's hit it short..Well that's my opinion.

Not sure I agree about Courier.

Other than that, these are clearly better players than Roddick. But try also won more than 3-6 slams, which is what Roddick might have achieved without Fed to stop him.

And the appreciation might have changed if he did win more slams ...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk