Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

I don't think Roger goes AWOL in 2009 under any circumstances...

2008 RG... He suffers the most humiliating defeat of his career.

BUT

He makes the finals at Wimbledon. Where he suffers the most heartbreaking defeat of his career.

BUT

He makes the finals at the USO and takes the title.

THEN

He suffers a tough defeat in the finals at the AO in 5 against his arch-nemesis

BUT

he makes another RG final, this time winning it.

THEN

he makes another Wimbledon final and wins that.

BUT

He loses the USO in a disappointing final against Del Potro.


The pattern is... Roger was was making finals whether Nadal was around or not around. One thing you can say about Roger until recently was that he was consistent in reaching the business end of proceedings regardless of what was going on with Rafael Nadal.

That semi-final streak wasn't a mirage and had little to do with Nadal either.

I don't think Nadal's timeout in 2009 re-energized Roger. He was always there or thereabouts. Nadal was missing for one major... and based on their Wimbledon histories I don't think it can be assumed that Nadal would have taken that title.

It can always be assumed that Nadal will beat Federer post 2007 in majors. Because he always did. That doesn't guarantee a win, but that's why it's called an assumption.

 

[El Dude]

Wow, at the risk of stepping into an all-out war here, I do have a question for Kieran. Forgive me if this has already been talked about, but I'm wondering what you think about the idea that Rafa's penchant for injury and high level of play when healthy go hand-in-hand. Meaning, the former is a result of the effort and intensity that is required by the latter.

Clearly him missing Slams due to injury technically took away from his chances of winning more, but could it be that he missed those Slams because of his overall style and intensity of play that enables him to win Slams in the first place?

Does that make sense? What do you think?

As an aside, I also think that Rafa thrives playing from behind, that he's better rising to the top than maintaining the top for long, which is why he's never been #1 for more than about a year at a time. On the other hand, I think one of Roger's weaknesses is that due to his dominance in 2004-07, he never really learned to cope with fighting from behind and that the more a player beats Roger, the more success he'll have going forward against, regardless of the match-up. In other words, Roger doesn't do well with adversity in the same way that Rafa or Novak thrive on it, and it makes them better. I haven't researched this to back it up, but Roger also seems to do better in three-set matches than 4-5 sets. Novak, though, might be so great right now because he got so sick of seeing that year-end #3, year after year.

 

[Kieran]

Good stuff! :clap

Again, leaving aside the fanbase stuff about Oz in 2013, or the underestimated value of Rogers impeccable ability to remain largely aloof from normal wear and tear, I think we have some measure of agreement here. As much as is possible, right?

Fanbase stuff? Who needs 18 days to get over a sore tummy ffs?! The Nadal fans and Nadal himself expect us to feel sorry for him missing that one which he could easily have played? Sorry, no pass on that one. The opponents in the early rounds would've played him into form in no time. That was 100% his own choice missing that.

No, it's fanbase stuff buddy. Players don't go straight into a slam after six months away and "play them self into form." :laydownlaughing It isn't that simple, unfortunately...

 

[brokenshoelace]

C. You can insult all you want but you're the one being a tard here. Yes the topic of the thread is about NADAL's potential slam count and whether or not he could catch Roger. But, like 99% of the other threads on this board, we got sidetracked and your comment in question is clearly about ROGER's slam count where he supposedly "could have" become a total nobody if we award Rafa 4 more wins. Now if that is hard for you to follow then I don't know what to say. "Jesus Christ"

You can't possibly be serious with this logic. The thread is about Nadal catching Federer. So when we got sidetracked into the hypothetical, discussing the slams Roger won or the slams Nadal didn't win are one and the same. The whole point is that during that period in 2009, Nadal's slam count and Roger's slam count were directly related. What happened at RG/Wimbledon of 2009 was pivotal. Roger added two more, good for him, while Nadal was too hurt to win the tournament he always wins, and too hurt to play the tournament he won the year before and the year after. That means Roger won fair and square, but it hardly means it's lunacy to assume a healthy Nadal, who was riding the biggest wave of dominance of his career at that point, and had a huge edge over Roger, could have won both (as he did the year before and the year after). Since you're giving math lessons that means you take off two slams from Roger and add two to Nadal, which makes a 4 slam difference. Yes, it's too much of a "what if" but mathematically, it's hardly as dubious as you're making it out to be. I'm sure you're mathematically astute enough to realize that the current difference in slams is 3.

In hindsight, that stretch was a deciding factor in Nadal not being able to catch up to Roger, even if Roger wouldn't fall off the face of earth afterwards (not that it was ever likely).

 

[DarthFed]

^ Rafa had already started practicing and the sore tummy just halted it. Let's not act like he'd be going from 7 months on the couch to stepping foot on a court for the first time. And do you really think players like the top 3 couldn't beat a few powderpuffs (and gain a little form in the process) after not playing a match for 6 months? I wouldn't bet against it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Good stuff! :clap

Again, leaving aside the fanbase stuff about Oz in 2013, or the underestimated value of Rogers impeccable ability to remain largely aloof from normal wear and tear, I think we have some measure of agreement here. As much as is possible, right?

Fanbase stuff? Who needs 18 days to get over a sore tummy ffs?! The Nadal fans and Nadal himself expect us to feel sorry for him missing that one which he could easily have played? Sorry, no pass on that one. The opponents in the early rounds would've played him into form in no time. That was 100% his own choice missing that.

Dr. Front, great to see your contributions on all things health and PED's as always. Shockingly, you're slightly more qualified to talk about that than Federberg is to talk about tennis.

 

[britbox]

I don't think Roger goes AWOL in 2009 under any circumstances...

2008 RG... He suffers the most humiliating defeat of his career.

BUT

He makes the finals at Wimbledon. Where he suffers the most heartbreaking defeat of his career.

BUT

He makes the finals at the USO and takes the title.

THEN

He suffers a tough defeat in the finals at the AO in 5 against his arch-nemesis

BUT

he makes another RG final, this time winning it.

THEN

he makes another Wimbledon final and wins that.

BUT

He loses the USO in a disappointing final against Del Potro.


The pattern is... Roger was was making finals whether Nadal was around or not around. One thing you can say about Roger until recently was that he was consistent in reaching the business end of proceedings regardless of what was going on with Rafael Nadal.

That semi-final streak wasn't a mirage and had little to do with Nadal either.

I don't think Nadal's timeout in 2009 re-energized Roger. He was always there or thereabouts. Nadal was missing for one major... and based on their Wimbledon histories I don't think it can be assumed that Nadal would have taken that title.

It can always be assumed that Nadal will beat Federer post 2007 in majors. Because he always did. That doesn't guarantee a win, but that's why it's called an assumption.

You're assuming Nadal gets to the final in the first place. Guys like Darcis and Rosol ensured he always didn't.

 

[Federberg]

Wow, at the risk of stepping into an all-out war here, I do have a question for Kieran. Forgive me if this has already been talked about, but I'm wondering what you think about the idea that Rafa's penchant for injury and high level of play when healthy go hand-in-hand. Meaning, the former is a result of the effort and intensity that is required by the latter.
_______________________________________________________________________
Agreed. The cost of doing business as I mentioned
_______________________________________________________________________
Clearly him missing Slams due to injury technically took away from his chances of winning more, but could it be that he missed those Slams because of his overall style and intensity of play that enables him to win Slams in the first place?

Does that make sense? What do you think?
_______________________________________________________________________
Total common sense, but there's not much of that around here at the moment :nono
_______________________________________________________________________

As an aside, I also think that Rafa thrives playing from behind, that he's better rising to the top than maintaining the top for long, which is why he's never been #1 for more than about a year at a time. On the other hand, I think one of Roger's weaknesses is that due to his dominance in 2004-07, he never really learned to cope with fighting from behind and that the more a player beats Roger, the more success he'll have going forward against, regardless of the match-up. In other words, Roger doesn't do well with adversity in the same way that Rafa or Novak thrive on it, and it makes them better. I haven't researched this to back it up, but Roger also seems to do better in three-set matches than 4-5 sets. Novak, though, might be so great right now because he got so sick of seeing that year-end #3, year after year.

I can see why you might see it that way Dude, but I'm not sure that stacks up. Roger lost the number 1 ranking and claimed it back a few times. And also won slams as well. The only thing is that on these boards, instead of the narrative being that Roger came back from adversity to win said slams, some fanboys would have you believe that he was lucky, and it was only because the moon was blue, or Rafa stepped on a banana or... sigh.. someone feel free to suggest another ridiculous fantasy in the gap :nono

 

[Federberg]

Good stuff! :clap

Again, leaving aside the fanbase stuff about Oz in 2013, or the underestimated value of Rogers impeccable ability to remain largely aloof from normal wear and tear, I think we have some measure of agreement here. As much as is possible, right?

Fanbase stuff? Who needs 18 days to get over a sore tummy ffs?! The Nadal fans and Nadal himself expect us to feel sorry for him missing that one which he could easily have played? Sorry, no pass on that one. The opponents in the early rounds would've played him into form in no time. That was 100% his own choice missing that.

Dr. Front, great to see your contributions on all things health and PED's as always. Shockingly, you're slightly more qualified to talk about that than Federberg is to talk about tennis.

:laydownlaughing
the last resort of the lost

 

[Kieran]

Hey Dude!

The injury stuff has been done at length but I agree with your view on Roger and how he had it easy early on, leading to maybe a sense of entitlement when it came to facing adversity. Don't get me wrong, the man is hard, but he got used to players being awed and going away, whereas as Rafa never did, and I don't think Roger ever learned how to handle that. In this sense, Rafa was probably the model for Novak, because he was the one Novak had to take down. But it's a very interesting observation, and it doesn't denigrate Roger in the slightest...

 

[DarthFed]

C. You can insult all you want but you're the one being a tard here. Yes the topic of the thread is about NADAL's potential slam count and whether or not he could catch Roger. But, like 99% of the other threads on this board, we got sidetracked and your comment in question is clearly about ROGER's slam count where he supposedly "could have" become a total nobody if we award Rafa 4 more wins. Now if that is hard for you to follow then I don't know what to say. "Jesus Christ"

You can't possibly be serious with this logic. The thread is about Nadal catching Federer. So when we got sidetracked into the hypothetical, discussing the slams Roger won or the slams Nadal didn't win are one and the same. The whole point is that during that period in 2009, Nadal's slam count and Roger's slam count were directly related. What happened at RG/Wimbledon of 2009 was pivotal. Roger added two more, good for him, while Nadal was too hurt to win the tournament he always wins, and too hurt to play the tournament he won the year before and the year after. That means Roger won fair and square, but it hardly means it's lunacy to assume a healthy Nadal, who was riding the biggest wave of dominance of his career at that point, and had a huge edge over Roger, could have won both (as he did the year before and the year after). Since you're giving math lessons that means you take off two slams from Roger and add two to Nadal, which makes a 4 slam difference. Yes, it's too much of a "what if" but mathematically, it's hardly as dubious as you're making it out to be. I'm sure you're mathematically astute enough to realize that the current difference in slams is 3.

In hindsight, that stretch was a deciding factor in Nadal not being able to catch up to Roger, even if Roger wouldn't fall off the face of earth afterwards (not that it was ever likely).

:clap Lawyer/politician, you've learned the trade well clearly. Your comment was clearly calling into question whether or not Roger could have caught Pete (ie win another slam) had we awarded Rafa an extra 4 wins. In that context you weren't discussing the the slam count between Rafa and Fed at all, more it was Fed and Sampras and the somehow plausible chance that Roger would turn to a scrub after 09 RG if he hadn't won.

Anyways it's all coulda, woulda, and I've already presented a couple we could use for Roger's career, mainly 2008 mono, and what might have happened at USO 2009 if he was on 13-14 slams vs. 15. I think you'd have seen a more greedy and focused Roger in that match.

 

[britbox]

Excuses aside... will Nadal pass Federer and win 18 or more (assuming Federer doesn't add to his tally)... I'd vote no.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wow, at the risk of stepping into an all-out war here, I do have a question for Kieran. Forgive me if this has already been talked about, but I'm wondering what you think about the idea that Rafa's penchant for injury and high level of play when healthy go hand-in-hand. Meaning, the former is a result of the effort and intensity that is required by the latter.

Clearly him missing Slams due to injury technically took away from his chances of winning more, but could it be that he missed those Slams because of his overall style and intensity of play that enables him to win Slams in the first place?

He missed the 2014 US Open due to a wrist injury that has nothing to do with his physical style, the 2013 AO due to a stomach virus that has nothing to do with his physical style, and he got hurt in the Ferrer match in the 3rd game of their AO 2011 match going for a routine ball. Of course, missing the 2012 US Open or Wimbledon in 2009 is a different issue. It's a bit of both, there's no denying it, but you can't place it all solely on one aspect (his intensity/physicality/whatever).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Excuses aside... will Nadal pass Federer and win 18 or more (assuming Federer doesn't add to his tally)... I'd vote no.

He won't even tie him.

 

[Kieran]

Excuses aside... will Nadal pass Federer and win 18 or more (assuming Federer doesn't add to his tally)... I'd vote no.

:laydownlaughing :laydownlaughing

And there's a reason he won't!

 

[brokenshoelace]

C. You can insult all you want but you're the one being a tard here. Yes the topic of the thread is about NADAL's potential slam count and whether or not he could catch Roger. But, like 99% of the other threads on this board, we got sidetracked and your comment in question is clearly about ROGER's slam count where he supposedly "could have" become a total nobody if we award Rafa 4 more wins. Now if that is hard for you to follow then I don't know what to say. "Jesus Christ"

You can't possibly be serious with this logic. The thread is about Nadal catching Federer. So when we got sidetracked into the hypothetical, discussing the slams Roger won or the slams Nadal didn't win are one and the same. The whole point is that during that period in 2009, Nadal's slam count and Roger's slam count were directly related. What happened at RG/Wimbledon of 2009 was pivotal. Roger added two more, good for him, while Nadal was too hurt to win the tournament he always wins, and too hurt to play the tournament he won the year before and the year after. That means Roger won fair and square, but it hardly means it's lunacy to assume a healthy Nadal, who was riding the biggest wave of dominance of his career at that point, and had a huge edge over Roger, could have won both (as he did the year before and the year after). Since you're giving math lessons that means you take off two slams from Roger and add two to Nadal, which makes a 4 slam difference. Yes, it's too much of a "what if" but mathematically, it's hardly as dubious as you're making it out to be. I'm sure you're mathematically astute enough to realize that the current difference in slams is 3.

In hindsight, that stretch was a deciding factor in Nadal not being able to catch up to Roger, even if Roger wouldn't fall off the face of earth afterwards (not that it was ever likely).

:clap Lawyer/politician, you've learned the trade well clearly. Your comment was clearly calling into question whether or not Roger could have caught Pete (ie win another slam) had we awarded Rafa an extra 4 wins. In that context you weren't discussing the the slam count between Rafa and Fed at all, more it was Fed and Sampras and the somehow plausible chance that Roger would turn to a scrub after 09 RG if he hadn't won.

In that context, I was discussing both. It's really simple, since I was implying Nadal could have won those majors instead. I'm discussing both.

I don't follow politics, and it takes much more than that to be lawyers. This was an obvious point, one you can disagree with certainly, but don't tell me I wasn't obviously talking about both since in that context, they're directly related.

 

[britbox]

^ Yeah... Roger won more major finals. Not rocket science.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Excuses aside... will Nadal pass Federer and win 18 or more (assuming Federer doesn't add to his tally)... I'd vote no.

Also, stop going off topic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't think Roger goes AWOL in 2009 under any circumstances...

2008 RG... He suffers the most humiliating defeat of his career.

BUT

He makes the finals at Wimbledon. Where he suffers the most heartbreaking defeat of his career.

BUT

He makes the finals at the USO and takes the title.

THEN

He suffers a tough defeat in the finals at the AO in 5 against his arch-nemesis

BUT

he makes another RG final, this time winning it.

THEN

he makes another Wimbledon final and wins that.

BUT

He loses the USO in a disappointing final against Del Potro.


The pattern is... Roger was was making finals whether Nadal was around or not around. One thing you can say about Roger until recently was that he was consistent in reaching the business end of proceedings regardless of what was going on with Rafael Nadal.

That semi-final streak wasn't a mirage and had little to do with Nadal either.

I don't think Nadal's timeout in 2009 re-energized Roger. He was always there or thereabouts. Nadal was missing for one major... and based on their Wimbledon histories I don't think it can be assumed that Nadal would have taken that title.

It can always be assumed that Nadal will beat Federer post 2007 in majors. Because he always did. That doesn't guarantee a win, but that's why it's called an assumption.

You're assuming Nadal gets to the final in the first place. Guys like Darcis and Rosol ensured he always didn't.

Eh, 2012/2013? We're talking about Nadal in the midst of five Wimbledon final appearances in 5 participations. The same Nadal that went on to win it in 2010 and make the final again in 2011 losing to his nemesis. It's hardly the same and you know it. He's stunk on grass for a while now. He didn't stink back then. So yeah, for five years, he always did.

Come on, B.

 

[britbox]

It can always be assumed that Nadal will beat Federer post 2007 in majors. Because he always did. That doesn't guarantee a win, but that's why it's called an assumption.

You're assuming Nadal gets to the final in the first place. Guys like Darcis and Rosol ensured he always didn't.

Eh, 2012/2013? We're talking about Nadal in the midst of five Wimbledon final appearances in 5 participations. The same Nadal that went on to win it in 2010 and make the final again in 2011 losing to his nemesis. It's hardly the same and you know it. He's stunk on grass for a while now. He didn't stink back then. So yeah, for five years, he always did.

Come on, B.

Well, you've got one shot BS - because Fed never even won the USO in 2009... so can you hand on heart assume Nadal wins the 2009 Wimbledon championships?

I'd be surprised if you can even though I'd give him a decent shot at it. But that ain't enough.

Rafa's had 20 non-wins in majors since he won his first and we're picking around one major? to prove what...? Fed wasn't re-energized in 2009, he was continuing the usual narrative of putting himself into a position to win - the same as he did it on 08, 09, 10.... even if Nadal owned the H2H.