The misguided notion that Nadal won't thrive after 30....

[calitennis127]

As a loyal fan and staunch admirer of Nadal (more so an admirer of his in certain key respects, if I am being serious), I am quite annoyed by this commonly held view that Nadal "only has two years left" or something of that sort. I think that this is a gross misunderstanding of Nadal's mind and his game, not to mention a misreading of where tennis is today.

First of all, Nadal is one of the most durable athletes I have ever seen. Yes, he has had the two major knee injuries in 2009 and 2013. However, aside from those pauses, he has played with full intensity and played many matches at this level of extreme physical rigor - and that is no minor disclaimer. To have done so, you have to possess incredible stamina and recovery ability. To think that this ability will fall off to the point that Nadal becomes irrelevant in 2 or 3 years is simply unscientific and absurd. Plus, Nadal is a very gifted athlete in terms of quickness, speed, and explosiveness, and he has expanded his game to be more offensive in recent years as well.

There is really no logical basis to thinking that he will just completely fall off the map in, say, 2016. There seems to be this idea out there that he will fall to 70th in the world and spend the rest of his life on crutches. I just don't see it.

He may reduce his schedule somewhat, but the ease with which he will still be winning on clay will ensure that he is a Top 5 player. Moreover, aside from Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, and quite likely Janowicz, there is no one who we can definitively say will be a major challenge for him off of clay. I challenge anyone on here to say, for instance, that a 30-year-old Nadal would not be a favorite against a 24-year-old Raonic at Wimbledon, or anywhere. Oh wait. Is Berdych going to suddenly beat him when they are both in their early 30s?

Nadal will not only be around at 30, he will comfortably be in the Top 4/Top 5 at least. Unless Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro really get their act together, I also expect him to eclipse Federer's Slam record. Nadal can without question win multiple Roland Garros titles between ages 31 and 35. With the French Open alone, he can probably beat Federer's record of 18 - that is, of course, if Djokovic and Delpo don't play to their potential.

I hate to break it to Federer fans, but their contentment ever since 2010 with questions such as "what could possibly motivate Federer after Slam #16?" is really coming back to haunt them now. The Slam record is all but broken, barring a saving act from Roger's disliked rival, Mr. Djokovic, or a rise of Delpo and Murray that we have to wait to see to believe, or a combination of all of these occurring (which is possible).

But, those who say that Nadal "only has two years left" really have no idea of what they speak. They have never understood what really separates Nadal from the pack and why he has had the degree of success that he has had in his career. Otherwise, they wouldn't be talking like he is 37, instead of 27. There's a big difference there.

 

[El Dude]

Ha ha, are you looking to start a fight? Your post is full of aggression, yet I'm not sure who you're speaking to.

Anyhow, I have no idea how Rafa is going to be playing when he's 30. That's two and a half years from now and a lot can happen. The only thing I'll say with some degree of certainty is that if he does slip, and not just due to injury but age and overall wear and tear, then I don't think he'll stick around for long. In other words, we won't see a 30-something career like Connors or even Laver.

One player to think about when considering Rafa's longevity is Andre Agassi. Agassi is an outlier, but there some similarities - a strong defensive game, some time missed during their peaks, etc.

But it all comes down to the knees. Rafa will remain great as long as his body lets him. But if his movement starts to slip, well, things could go downhill fast.

Finally, don't forget the historical precedence: very few great players remain great after turning 32 years old. Of the 4+ Slam winners of the Open Era, there's only Agassi. Everyone else was either majorly declined or retired. Think about that for a moment. Tennis is a game of small margins; a player like Tommy Haas stays hungry and will pay as long as he can. But unlike Rafa or Federer, he doesn't have a super-elite height to fall from. If we look at Roger, for instance, I could imagine him remaining in the 5-15 range for years to come if he really wants to - even into his late 30s. But will he have the drive to keep playing when he's no longer a serious Slam threat? I doubt it, at least not for long.

Rafa's even more intensely competitive. I'm not sure he'd be content to be anything less than one of the very best. If he slips to where Roger is now, I could see Rafa giving it one last shot and then calling it quits.

 

[calitennis127]

Ha ha, are you looking to start a fight?

Me? No, never.

Anyhow, I have no idea how Rafa is going to be playing when he's 30. That's two and a half years from now and a lot can happen.

True. However, I really wouldn't expect to see much change in Nadal's game. A lot can change in the tennis landscape as far as clout and standing go, but his game won't change that much.

The only thing I'll say with some degree of certainty is that if he does slip, and not just due to injury but age and overall wear and tear, then I don't think he'll stick around for long.

This is what I mean when I say people don't understand Nadal. If I may ask, what or who are you talking about? The Rafael Nadal who maintains a 24/7 passion for tennis to the point that he wins every significant clay title 6+ times in basically the same way?

The guy who makes a comeback at age 26-27 that virtually no one expected, with everyone wondering whether he could even be Top 5 again, and follows his normal clay excellence with a tear through the North American hardcourts that he had never pulled off earlier in his career?

This is not a guy who will get tired with tennis. I truly do not understand this idea that if he falls to #5, he'll just get bored with the game and hang them up.

I mean, who are you talking about here? The same person?

One player to think about when considering Rafa's longevity is Andre Agassi. Agassi is an outlier, but there some similarities - a strong defensive game, some time missed during their peaks, etc.

Agassi wasn't even close to the same caliber of athlete that Nadal is. That isn't to say Agassi wasn't athletic, but it is to say that he never had the natural court coverage ability, durability, and stamina of Nadal.

But it all comes down to the knees. Rafa will remain great as long as his body lets him. But if his movement starts to slip, well, things could go downhill fast.

Why? Is Dimitrov going to beat him 7 times in a row? Who exactly is there to fear besides Djokovic, Murray, and Delpo for the next 5 years?

Finally, don't forget the historical precedence: very few great players remain great after turning 32 years old.

And very few generations have been as low on talent as the early 20s group today, as you have documented quite thoroughly. Do you seriously think a 31-year-old Nadal would lose to the likes of Raonic or Tomic in a significant MS or GS match? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Rafa's even more intensely competitive. I'm not sure he'd be content to be anything less than one of the very best. If he slips to where Roger is now, I could see Rafa giving it one last shot and then calling it quits.

I think you are seriously misreading him. Nadal is certainly driven to win, but I think he genuinely loves tennis to the point that it is such a natural part of him that he can't easily separate from himself. You are implying that he puts winning ahead of enjoyment of the game and the excitement of competition. In that, I think you are really off-base.

If that was the case, Nadal would have been much more discouraged by his record of straight-set defeats on hardcourt players to numerous Top 10 players going back to 2005. Unlike most other players, he was not devastated or permanently affected by these kinds of losses. He came back because of a desire to get better and play the game he loves in the best way that he can, and to do all of this very ambitiously. I don't think he did it just because he had some sort of pathological obsession with "winning" as an ultimate end.

 

[Fastgrass]

Two effective years means four years for rafa .

From 2008

he played 4 years with 2 injury years
So max . 3 years are left m

 

[El Dude]

Cali, all I'm saying is that I'm not sure how much Rafa will want to continue if and when he starts slipping. Given his uber-competitive nature, I can't see him continuing on merely for "love of the game." This is why so many greats retire in the 30-32 range; they start losing a half-step and they don't want to continue. But sometimes it takes them awhile to realize, or admit to the fact, that they've lost an edge.

John McEnroe is a notable exception. He dropped noticeably after his troubles in 1985 at the age of 26 but continued on playing until he was 33. His last Slam final was in 1985, but he played through 1992.

But most greats don't want to keep on playing once its clear they're no longer great. When that will be for Rafa we just can't know. Rafa could be like most great players and remain great until sometime in the 30-32 range. But the reason some people think he could decline before then is because of his history with knee problems, which tend not to magically go away. This isn't definite, maybe not even probable, but the risk is there.

But maybe not. I honestly don't know and, quite frankly, neither do you. Let's remain open while discussing possibilities. I certainly hope to see Rafa continue playing for years to come. I'm also hoping to see some of the younger players start to challenge the current elite, but as you say, given the weakness of the current crop, the peaks of Rafa, Novak and Andy could be somewhat artificially extended because of the weakness of the generation born in 1990 and later.

 

[shawnbm]

I personally question whether Rafa will physically be able to continue to play the game he can now in three years time. I have my doubts, and if he loses a step and is not in position for a lot of his shots, his decline could be abrupt. I think we should enjoy him as much as possible whilst he is playing top level tennis.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nadal's success depends on his speed. The reason is his biggest weapon is the forehand and the extreme grip he has on that side requires him to get under that ball at a perfect timing. Even now, when he is in great shape, low bouncing courts and courts like the first week of Wimby give Nadal problems.
My point is, I have no idea when Nadal will decline or when the knees will give up, but when they do, the shankfest from his forehand side will be epic. I hope it is later than sooner.

 

[El Dude]

LOL, "epic shankfest."

 

[ClayDeath]

I think he has to try to improve if he wants to play a log time. what you saw this year were not really improvements. especially on the north American hard court circuit:

1. one reason he was able to dominate was because some of the other top guns were not quite in the groove. and there was no andy murray either.

2. he did work on his serve, his return, and his backhand a little and that paid off.

3. he changed his court positioning a little bit because he was feeling a little better about his serve, his return, and his backhand.

he usually retrieves to 6 miles behind the baseline when he is not feeling it as they say or when he is not feeling confident.

so bottom line: he has to start working harder and make a few improvements. he still remains terrified at the net. you have been watching nole attack the net. that is one thing he has been working on. as a matter of fact nole attributes some of his success to feeling more confident in going forward.

this is not rocket science. nadal has to fix his fitness, his serve, his return, and his backhand.

and there is still plenty of time to become more confident at the net.

just 3% improvements in those areas will lead to a much easier life on the court and he can last a while longer in the sport.

lastly, even without the improvements he can play another 3 years simply because he has enough talent and enough physical gifts from the gods. he is no ordinary athlete.

he needs to cut back a little bit of the hard court activity to minimize the damage to the knee. it is too risky at this point to sustain another serious knee injury.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

While I don't know how long Rafa will be able to keep his body and act together,
I agree with ElDude that when Rafa slips he will go fast to oblivion.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a chart for y'all that puts Nadal's next few years in historical context. Again, this is not to say that Rafa couldn't buck trends, but it shows what those trends are.

Basically what I did was look at all 18 players who won 4+ Slams in the Open Era. I then looked at their entire careers and assigned point values per year (based upon the age they turned that year), like so: W 25, F 15, SF 10, QF 6, 4R 3, 3R 2, 2R 1. In other words, I gave points for each match won at a Grand Slam (or Pro Slam for Laver and Rosewall).

Now let me make something clear: These numbers are somewhat arbitrary and don't really matter. They could be any number of ascending values; I assigned as I did to give greater and greater weight to better results. This exercise could also have been done with a less steep incline and perhaps been more accurate. The point is this: to get a sense of how every "great" player of the Open Era did at each age.

I then averaged off the total of all players for each age-determined year. This gives us a sense of how good a great player (4+ Slams) is at any given age, relative to other ages (again, this is the main purpose - and is why any number scheme would have worked fine).

So here's the chart:



The above again supports the view that the most common peak range is age 22-26, with a broader "plateau" of near-peak performance of age of 20-21 to 31. The drop off between 31 to 32 is quite extreme, and certainly Roger Federer has not proven to be an exception.

Anyhow the chart also points out how the post-peak plateau from age 27-31 can vary widely. Many players had great, peak-caliber seasons, during that range, but few were consistently at a peak level for the entire period.

And this is where we come back to Nadal. I think two things are likely:

1) He remains an elite player through age 31; after that, all bets are off
2) He has up and down periods during that time, with some seasons being at or near his best level and some not so great.

For those expecting greater consistency, consider the last two years. Rafa hasn't played in two of the last five Grand Slams. In four of the last six Slams, he's either not played or gone out in the 1R or 2R. In other words, of the last six Slams, Rafa has only had strong results in two of them - winning them both.

Again, the above chart is baed on averages and trends, and Rafa could very well forge his own path very different from historical precedents. But the trends do tell a very clear picture, and there are good reasons to think that Rafa won't be different than historical norms and be up and down over the next four years (age 28-31) and decline rapidly after that.

 

[ClayDeath]

this is exactly why I said he has to try to improve going forward.

he is a special athlete so that will allow him to buck the trend to some extent.

but he has to improve to make the game easier for himself.

he certainly cant keep missing the opportunities to compete for slams.

he threw away 2009 after snatching the Australian open right at the height of his powers.

 

[Moxie]

As a loyal fan and staunch admirer of Nadal

OK, I can't wait any longer for someone else to call you out on this: Cali, sweetheart, you have never been a fan of Nadal, loyal or otherwise. "Admirer," as to points about his athleticism and mental strength you cop to, but "fan?" You can't even say he's a talented tennis player. And I have asked you, feet to the fire. You said no.

To your original point, I don't think it's knowable how Rafa will do, post-30. I certainly hope that he's fit and playing at his top level, or near it. But consider this: Federer, who's body rarely has betrayed him, is finding it harder to keep up at 32. Nadal has had greater physical problems, the whole of his career. I'll be happy to have Rafa play for as long as he's enjoying it, as I will be for Roger. If we're lucky, they'll both still be playing well, and in good physical health for a few years yet. Folks have been predicting the demise of Nadal for a few years now, and maybe that's what you're reacting to. And lately, also, the demise of Fed. Roger came back, and won Wimbledon, and regained the #1. Rafa came back, won 2 Majors, and the #1, as well. We don't know what more they can do, as they are exceptional champions. El Dude is not wrong to project based on statistical models. Players like Roger and Rafa might break the mold, for old and moldy, but it's not fair to call it "misguided," IMO.

 

[El Dude]

Well put, Moxie. I was a bit surprised as to how vociferous Cali was about Nadal. Maybe the "demise" of Nalbandian has caused him to turn his affection to someone else.

Just to be clear, I'm not really projecting based on statistical models. I think this is a misunderstanding that I see quite frequently. I use them to better understand trends and context. From that, we can make better informed projections. In other words, they help us make projections, but they're only part of the picture. Ultimately each player is unique and must be taken as such. But I do think its worthwhile to understand the historical context so we can ask question like, "Will Player X follow the historical norms or not?"

I do think that chart is a good indicator for Nadal. It says that his real window of opportunity is the next four years, and that time might be a rocky ride. But that's nothing new for Rafa and his fans!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

You are not foolin' anyone Cali dear...We all know Nalbandian is an anagram for I BAN NADAL !!! (do what you want with the extra N)

 

[Moxie]

Well put, Moxie. I was a bit surprised as to how vociferous Cali was about Nadal. Maybe the "demise" of Nalbandian has caused him to turn his affection to someone else.

Just to be clear, I'm not really projecting based on statistical models. I think this is a misunderstanding that I see quite frequently. I use them to better understand trends and context. From that, we can make better informed projections. In other words, they help us make projections, but they're only part of the picture. Ultimately each player is unique and must be taken as such. But I do think its worthwhile to understand the historical context so we can ask question like, "Will Player X follow the historical norms or not?"

I do think that chart is a good indicator for Nadal. It says that his real window of opportunity is the next four years, and that time might be a rocky ride. But that's nothing new for Rafa and his fans!

Somehow, I don't think that the retirement of Nalbandian has turned Cali over to Rafa's camp. He's just being nice.

But I totally take your point about Nadal, and what the next four years could mean. I think everyone understands your models: they don't predict the future, but they surely tell us what we're up against.

As a Nadal fan, I have no problem with the notion that the next 4 years are his best window for serious results. I'd be surprised if the man himself would argue with that.

 

[Front242]

You are not foolin' anyone Cali dear...We all know Nalbandian is an anagram for I BAN NADAL !!! (do what you want with the extra N)

That's class :laydownlaughing:clap

 

[calitennis127]

OK, I can't wait any longer for someone else to call you out on this: Cali, sweetheart, you have never been a fan of Nadal, loyal or otherwise.

My remark was tongue-in-cheek and was meant to make all of you Nadal fans roll your eyes.

"Admirer," as to points about his athleticism and mental strength you cop to, but "fan?" You can't even say he's a talented tennis player. And I have asked you, feet to the fire. You said no.

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

That is not true at all.:laydownlaughing

What I have maintained is that if you look at the disparity between his accomplishments and the rest of the field's, it is not explained by a difference in talent level (in terms of tennis skill and shotmaking) that is proportionate to the difference in achievement.

I look at the H2H with Federer, for instance, as an indictment of Federer more than a compliment to Nadal.

If you are going strictly by shotmaking - Nadal should not have 2 US Opens and Djokovic only 1. Nadal should not have a summer hardcourt sweep that neither Federer nor Djokovic ever pulled off.

There are other factors besides pure tennis talent that explain these odd differences.

 

[calitennis127]

Here's a chart for y'all that puts Nadal's next few years in historical context. Again, this is not to say that Rafa couldn't buck trends, but it shows what those trends are.

Basically what I did was look at all 18 players who won 4+ Slams in the Open Era. I then looked at their entire careers and assigned point values per year (based upon the age they turned that year), like so: W 25, F 15, SF 10, QF 6, 4R 3, 3R 2, 2R 1. In other words, I gave points for each match won at a Grand Slam (or Pro Slam for Laver and Rosewall).

Now let me make something clear: These numbers are somewhat arbitrary and don't really matter. They could be any number of ascending values; I assigned as I did to give greater and greater weight to better results. This exercise could also have been done with a less steep incline and perhaps been more accurate. The point is this: to get a sense of how every "great" player of the Open Era did at each age.

I then averaged off the total of all players for each age-determined year. This gives us a sense of how good a great player (4+ Slams) is at any given age, relative to other ages (again, this is the main purpose - and is why any number scheme would have worked fine).

So here's the chart:



The above again supports the view that the most common peak range is age 22-26, with a broader "plateau" of near-peak performance of age of 20-21 to 31. The drop off between 31 to 32 is quite extreme, and certainly Roger Federer has not proven to be an exception.

Anyhow the chart also points out how the post-peak plateau from age 27-31 can vary widely. Many players had great, peak-caliber seasons, during that range, but few were consistently at a peak level for the entire period.

And this is where we come back to Nadal. I think two things are likely:

1) He remains an elite player through age 31; after that, all bets are off
2) He has up and down periods during that time, with some seasons being at or near his best level and some not so great.

For those expecting greater consistency, consider the last two years. Rafa hasn't played in two of the last five Grand Slams. In four of the last six Slams, he's either not played or gone out in the 1R or 2R. In other words, of the last six Slams, Rafa has only had strong results in two of them - winning them both.

Again, the above chart is baed on averages and trends, and Rafa could very well forge his own path very different from historical precedents. But the trends do tell a very clear picture, and there are good reasons to think that Rafa won't be different than historical norms and be up and down over the next four years (age 28-31) and decline rapidly after that.

Good analysis, El Dude.

However, I think you need to keep in mind that what originally prompted my thread were two comments from other threads: 1) that Nadal realistically only has two or three more chances to win the World Tour Finals, and 2) that Nadal basically just has "two years left" in general.

I am not buying either.

Regarding point #1, does anyone seriously think that Nadal will be incapable of making the World Tour Finals until he is 35? If there was a group of 4 to 6 really serious players in the young group, I would maybe identify somewhat with this view. But there isn't.

As for #2, Nadal has won the French Open easily most years. If he falls off a little bit there, he will still be very far ahead of the pack. So how in the world do you only have "two years left" if you can still be the odd-on favorite to win a specific Slam for another 7 to 8 years?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK, I can't wait any longer for someone else to call you out on this: Cali, sweetheart, you have never been a fan of Nadal, loyal or otherwise.

My remark was tongue-in-cheek and was meant to make all of you Nadal fans roll your eyes.

"Admirer," as to points about his athleticism and mental strength you cop to, but "fan?" You can't even say he's a talented tennis player. And I have asked you, feet to the fire. You said no.

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

That is not true at all.:laydownlaughing

What I have maintained is that if you look at the disparity between his accomplishments and the rest of the field's, it is not explained by a difference in talent level (in terms of tennis skill and shotmaking) that is proportionate to the difference in achievement.

I look at the H2H with Federer, for instance, as an indictment of Federer more than a compliment to Nadal.

If you are going strictly by shotmaking - Nadal should not have 2 US Opens and Djokovic only 1. Nadal should not have a summer hardcourt sweep that neither Federer nor Djokovic ever pulled off.

There are other factors besides pure tennis talent that explain these odd differences.

I think Einstein said that success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. One
can have boat loads of talent; if they don't apply themselves, they will no go anywhere.
Moreover, the more you don't succeed, your talent level will decrease. Talent level
is not something people get exclusively by birth.