Tracking the Race to London - 2014 WTF

[DarthFed]

One of the most curious parts of your posts, Dude, was that Nole has now played more slams than Rafa. Makes sense, given how many Rafa has missed through injury, and also that Nole is only a year younger. Sometimes I need to remind myself of this, because I often feel that Rafa is so much older than him...

I think it has to do with how quickly he became visible due to winning a Slam. Novak was also quite good from early on, but didn't win his first Slam until 2008. So while he's only one year younger than Rafa, his "Slam Age" is three years younger.

Actually, here's another way to look at it: the gap between the first Slam title of Roger (Wimbledon 2003) and Rafa (French Open 2005), or six Slams between them, is actually significantly narrower than Rafa and Novak (Australian Open 2008), with ten Slams between them. This makes it feel like Rafa is closer to Roger's generation, even though he's chronologically very much of the same generation as Novak.

I think Rafa is nearly his own generation. He came up fast at 18-19, and never relented. Nole won at a good age to be in your sweet-spot, Dude, for long-term success: 20-years old. But he got pushed aside by Fedal (+1 Del Potro) before he got his next Major.

Given that you like numbers, here is the W/L and career totals for Nadal, Djokovic and Murray:

Nadal: 702/137 = 839
Djokovic: 587/139 = 729
Murray: 460/146 = 706

With 110 more matches played than Djokovic, Nadal is about 2-3 year ahead of him, in tennis years, and possible 4 "tennis years" ahead of Murray. (Given 60-ish as a norm for a top player.) Interestingly, Nadal has 2 fewer total losses than Djokovic, but 115 more wins.

But, overall, I think this shows, in part, why people don't know what to make of Nadal's potential longevity. Age is one thing, matches played is another. Injury lay-offs can be time in the bank, but it also means he's injury-prone. It all leads to the notion that Rafa's longevity is a great mystery.

The norm is about 70 matches per year for top players so Rafa is about 1.5 years older than Nole in tennis years and only about 2 years older than Murray.

I'm actually surprised Nole hasn't played a lot more matches than Murray and I also figured he'd be closer to Rafa in total matches than he is. Rafa became a top player in 2005 just a year younger than when Nole became a top player in 2007.

 

[Kieran]

I think that Rafa missing about 16 months of tennis has meant that Nole is closer in terms of matches played, but Rafa was clogged firmly in the upper echelons before we'd heard much of Novak. I tend to think of Rafa as being much older than Nole, and almost as being from Roger's generation, more than simply being from the class a year ahead of Novak and Andy.

What's really impressive us that Rafa has played fewer majors than Nole - and won twice as many...

 

[Moxie]

One of the most curious parts of your posts, Dude, was that Nole has now played more slams than Rafa. Makes sense, given how many Rafa has missed through injury, and also that Nole is only a year younger. Sometimes I need to remind myself of this, because I often feel that Rafa is so much older than him...

I think it has to do with how quickly he became visible due to winning a Slam. Novak was also quite good from early on, but didn't win his first Slam until 2008. So while he's only one year younger than Rafa, his "Slam Age" is three years younger.

Actually, here's another way to look at it: the gap between the first Slam title of Roger (Wimbledon 2003) and Rafa (French Open 2005), or six Slams between them, is actually significantly narrower than Rafa and Novak (Australian Open 2008), with ten Slams between them. This makes it feel like Rafa is closer to Roger's generation, even though he's chronologically very much of the same generation as Novak.

I think Rafa is nearly his own generation. He came up fast at 18-19, and never relented. Nole won at a good age to be in your sweet-spot, Dude, for long-term success: 20-years old. But he got pushed aside by Fedal (+1 Del Potro) before he got his next Major.

Given that you like numbers, here is the W/L and career totals for Nadal, Djokovic and Murray:

Nadal: 702/137 = 839
Djokovic: 587/139 = 729
Murray: 460/146 = 606 (changed)

With 110 more matches played than Djokovic, Nadal is about 2-3 year ahead of him, in tennis years, and possible 4 "tennis years" ahead of Murray. (Given 60-ish as a norm for a top player.) Interestingly, Nadal has 2 fewer total losses than Djokovic, but 115 more wins.

But, overall, I think this shows, in part, why people don't know what to make of Nadal's potential longevity. Age is one thing, matches played is another. Injury lay-offs can be time in the bank, but it also means he's injury-prone. It all leads to the notion that Rafa's longevity is a great mystery.

The norm is about 70 matches per year for top players so Rafa is about 1.5 years older than Nole in tennis years and only about 2 years older than Murray.

I'm actually surprised Nole hasn't played a lot more matches than Murray and I also figured he'd be closer to Rafa in total matches than he is. Rafa became a top player in 2005 just a year younger than when Nole became a top player in 2007.

Note that GSMath, per his name, fixed my figures:

Murray's total is 606, so it IS a lot lower than Novak's, and makes him about 3 years younger than Rafa, in tennis years, and nearly two years younger than Djokovic, if you use that measure, and given that they are almost exactly identical in age. I did point out that Nole became a top player at the appropriately young age, but he was prevented from racking up the amount of wins early, as he hit the same kind of ceiling that Rafa did with Roger for 3 years. For Novak, it was both of them.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Its amazing how long Nadal has been winning slams for consistently :speechless:
TEN straight slam-winning years and looking strong for ELEVEN in 2015 (knees actually better than they've been for years).
Nadal doesn't represent an era......he represents an age - The Nadal Age :clap

 

[El Dude]

I think the World Tour Finals might be the only tournament, except perhaps Basel and maybe maybe any grass court, where I think Roger has a good--even equal--chance of beating Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

NADAL2005RG, if I were a fellow Rafa fan I'd find you both annoying as the guy who makes me feel slightly embarrassed at how biased you are, but also grateful that I could always point to you for further depths of raving fanboyism, thereby making me feel more balanced.

 

[brokenshoelace]

NADAL2005RG, if I were a fellow Rafa fan I'd find you both annoying as the guy who makes me feel slightly embarrassed at how biased you are, but also grateful that I could always point to you for further depths of raving fanboyism, thereby making me feel more balanced.

I kid you not, just 3 minutes ago in a different thread, I wanted to reply to one of his posts saying "you make me want to root against Nadal" but thought better of it in order not to rile him up. Thanks for doing it for me

 

[Federberg]

NADAL2005RG, if I were a fellow Rafa fan I'd find you both annoying as the guy who makes me feel slightly embarrassed at how biased you are, but also grateful that I could always point to you for further depths of raving fanboyism, thereby making me feel more balanced.

I kid you not, just 3 minutes ago in a different thread, I wanted to reply to one of his posts saying "you make me want to root against Nadal" but thought better of it in order not to rile him up. Thanks for doing it for me

I'm so glad you guys have said this. I find it a struggle not to bite on some of his posts

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ I'm flattered.
When I was born, I never thought my opinion would be valued so highly.
Glad to be of service :spacecadet:

 

[DarthFed]

I think that Rafa missing about 16 months of tennis has meant that Nole is closer in terms of matches played, but Rafa was clogged firmly in the upper echelons before we'd heard much of Novak. I tend to think of Rafa as being much older than Nole, and almost as being from Roger's generation, more than simply being from the class a year ahead of Novak and Andy.

What's really impressive us that Rafa has played fewer majors than Nole - and won twice as many...

Yeah but as mentioned it is less than 2 years difference really. Similarly Roger became a major force in 2003 but he also didn't have the quick rise like Nadal or even Djokovic so he is likely about "3-4 tennis years" older than Rafa at this point. Not sure the amount of matches he's played but think it is close to 1200.

EDIT: Just saw 978-225 so 1,203 matches if that's accurate.

 

[Kieran]

Good guess. Roger has played 1204, soon he'll be third in the all-time list...

 

[El Dude]

Good guess. Roger has played 1204, soon he'll be third in the all-time list...

He'll definitely finish his career at least 2nd. Here's the field:

1531 Connors
1310 Lendl
1215 Vilas
1204 Federer

He's a lock to pass Vilas, and barring a surprise retirement in 2015, will pass Lendl as well. Connors will be more difficult - he's 327 matches ahead, which at about 70 matches a year is 4+ years. In other words, Roger would have to play full-time at least through 2018 and into 2019, the year he turns 38. Possible? Yeah. Likely? No.

Roger could also finish his career with more Grand Slams played in than anyone else. At 62 he's only 8 behind Fabrice Santoro. If he stays healthy and continues playing he'll equal by the end of 2016, the year that some have speculated Roger will retire. Hard to imagine only 8 more Slams with Roger in them!

 

[El Dude]

^ I'm flattered.
When I was born, I never thought my opinion would be valued so highly.
Glad to be of service :spacecadet:

Good for you for having a sense of humor about it.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ I'm flattered.
When I was born, I never thought my opinion would be valued so highly.
Glad to be of service :spacecadet:

Good for you for having a sense of humor about it.

Hard to take anything seriously on the internet, considering that EVERYBODY (think about what that means) is on the internet :lolz:

 

[isabelle]

According to tennisworldusa.org, Youngderer could modify his fall's schedule. His priorities are Masters ans DC's final. I guess he could skip Shanghai ? Or Basel ? Or Bercy ? He'll probably announce it soon

 

[DarthFed]

^ I could see him skipping Bercy as it could be a lot of tennis heading into the DC final. But I wonder if there is even an outside chance he can edge Djokovic for #1 if he decides to play Bercy even if it means he isn't too fresh for DC...

 

[Federberg]

^I really hope he does the sensible thing and focus on the Davis Cup. I really don't think another yearend number 1 matters in the scheme of things. 237 and >300 are sufficient for the record books. This may be his only chance for a DC. Going to be tough enough as it is!

 

[DarthFed]

Well it won't be popular opinion but a Davis Cup does nothing for his resume. Finishing #1 and winning yet another YEC are 2 things that would be huge, especially the former. If I had to choose it'd be finishing #1. If Roger had to choose he might take Davis Cup. Davis Cup is very important to the players but does nothing to determine individual greatness since it is a team event.

 

[Federberg]

Well it won't be popular opinion but a Davis Cup does nothing for his resume. Finishing #1 and winning yet another YEC are 2 things that would be huge, especially the former. If I had to choose it'd be finishing #1. If Roger had to choose he might take Davis Cup. Davis Cup is very important to the players but does nothing to determine individual greatness since it is a team event.

I agree. It's a matter of opinion I suspect he'll see #1 as "been there, done that". A Davis Cup though will be another item in the trophy cabinet. For me... even if he were to get #1, would that make him the player of 2014? ... Noooooo

 

[DarthFed]

I agree he wouldn't be player of the year no matter what but finishing #1 ties the record for most years at #1 and more significant would be the fact he'd do it as a 33 year old which would make him the oldest by far to finish #1 I think.