Will Nadal pass Federer?

[DarthFed]

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.

And in those 5 runs he went to 5 sets on five different occasions over 3 runs. He was hardly a sure thing. After all he had made 5 straight Wimbledon finals heading into the Rosol match right?

 

[Kieran]

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.

Exactly, you'd give him a decent shot at it, but there's nothing guaranteed. This is the point. Nothing can be said for sure. But did skipping it actually affect his "decent shot at it?" Obviously. Likewise, he's got a good record at the USO since 2009. Two wins, one final. Of the two he skipped, we don't know what would have happened, but has skipping these affected his chance to add to his total? Of course it has.

And this is the point. I'd have given him a great chance to catch federers total at the end of 2010. After the U.S. Open in 2013, I'd still give him a great chance, but not since, and that's mainly because he's just too injury prone, and has had to skip too many events. None of this is an excuse, because it's observable, and none of it is to say he definitely wudda blubba, and so on. This is what the topic is about, and the article GSM linked us to: speculation about would he, and if not, why not?

 

[Front242]

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...

He was perfectly healthy and practicing fine before getting his poor sore tummy. Roger actually won the AO '06 having been on crutches just prior the the 2005 Masters final which he narrowly lost in 5 sets. There's a real man for ya, despite the flagging he gets from Nadal tards about being a narcissist, he's much less of a wimp when it comes to needing 18 days to get over a tummy bug :snicker

 

[Kieran]

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...

He was perfectly healthy and practicing fine before getting his poor sore tummy. Roger actually won the AO '06 having been on crutches just prior the the 2005 Masters final which he narrowly lost in 5 sets. There's a real man for ya, despite the flagging he gets from Nadal tards about being a narcissist, he's much less of a wimp when it comes to needing 18 days to get over a tummy bug :snicker

Yeah well Rogers recoveries are legendary stuff buddy. Mere humans take months to recover from the stuff he's able to ignore...

 

[shawnbm]

It seems to me less likely as of now that Nadal catches Federer, as he has not had success at SW19 in years and is now less likely to be able to break through at New York or Melbourne with Novak playing as he is on hards. Now, if Nole suffers a surprise loss, then Nadal has as good a shot as anyone on any hard court.

 

[Federberg]

^I doubt anyone will say Rafa is lucky if that were to happen shawnbm :nono

 

[the AntiPusher]

I knew someone would give this post a bump. Mama said it would be days like this.

 

[Kieran]

It seems to me less likely as of now that Nadal catches Federer, as he has not had success at SW19 in years and is now less likely to be able to break through at New York or Melbourne with Novak playing as he is on hards. Now, if Nole suffers a surprise loss, then Nadal has as good a shot as anyone on any hard court.

He's way off the pace at the moment Shawn, losing to FFS twice on clay, and everybody else. Going down in flames on Wednesday. He's way off the pace of winning stuff like Barcelona on clay, let alone a big title on hards. But maybe in a couple months his game will be up there. It's been kinda one step forward, two steps back all season. He's nothing if not a trier, but it's asking a lot at this stage...

 

[El Dude]

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...

I'm sure it has, but I was curious about your opinion.

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).

I agree! I wouldn't place it solely on one aspect. I just think that when we look at players historically, we can only really see what a player has done, not what they shoulda or coulda done. It is a package deal. I'd even say that the ability to stay healthy is a skill that is a part of greatness, not separate from it - in a similar sense that despite what Cali would have us do, we cannot separate out the mental and physical aspects of the game. Greatness, and overall career accomplishments, is a combination of many factors, and in the end we can only ever judge a player's greatness based upon what they actually did - what the record shows - not what could have been if given different circumstances .

(A Fed version would be "What if Roger hadn't contracted mono in 2008? Or what if he didn't have that lingering back injury? Could he have won a couple more Slams?").

 

[El Dude]

As for Nadal and "Recoverygate," what is concerning is that he's never taken this long to get back to peak form. Not only is he having his worst season since 2004, but he simply hasn't been an elite player for about an entire calendar year now. He's 29-10 (74%) this year; after clay season last year he was 7-5 (58%). Adding those together, he's 36-15, or a 71% winning percentage, after Roland Garros last year. That's Berdych/Raonic territory, or similar to Roger's 2013.

 

[bobvance]

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...

He was perfectly healthy and practicing fine before getting his poor sore tummy. Roger actually won the AO '06 having been on crutches just prior the the 2005 Masters final which he narrowly lost in 5 sets. There's a real man for ya, despite the flagging he gets from Nadal tards about being a narcissist, he's much less of a wimp when it comes to needing 18 days to get over a tummy bug :snicker

Yeah well Rogers recoveries are legendary stuff buddy. Mere humans take months to recover from the stuff he's able to ignore...

Roger's record of durability can't all be attributed to luck, can it? Just because Roger doesn't look and play like a Tarzan doesn't mean he's not physically and mentally tough. Maybe Roger should have shut it down for the Season in 2013 when his back was acting up. Apparently he can't claim injury or illness if he hasn't dropped out of tournaments.

 

[Kieran]

^^No, I don't attribute it to luck...

 

[bobvance]

^^No, I don't attribute it to luck...

To providence then?

Roger must be the most blessed player in history.

 

[El Dude]

As I said above, staying healthy is a skill. Luck has something to do with it, but only in specific instances - not as much over an entire career.

A major aspect of Roger's greatness is his remarkable health.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I always felt that it would been hard for Nadal to catch or surpass Federer in Slam total. Part of it was injuries, another reason is because Federer is still playing so he has chance increase the lead, and the main reason I didn't believe he won't able to catch Federer is because of his style of play. Even though he has won every Slam, he is still as not as consistent on Hard and grass courts.

Now, this was before Djokovic became a GREAT player in 2011.

I still do think Nadal will reach 16 slams total when it is all said and done. I just think he is so mentally tough that he could snatch away two slams even at age of 29 and 30.

 

[rafanoy1992]

As for Nadal and "Recoverygate," what is concerning is that he's never taken this long to get back to peak form. Not only is he having his worst season since 2004, but he simply hasn't been an elite player for about an entire calendar year now. He's 29-10 (74%) this year; after clay season last year he was 7-5 (58%). Adding those together, he's 36-15, or a 71% winning percentage, after Roland Garros last year. That's Berdych/Raonic territory, or similar to Roger's 2013.

That bolded part is what makes me somewhat optimistic about Nadal in 2016. I think he will have a bounce back year in 2016. No, I don't think he will be a Top 3 player but I think he can snatch a Slam next year. Yes, Nadal in 2015 and Federer in 2013 are two totally different circumstances but they are two of the greatest of all time. Like they said, don't ever count out of a heart of a champion.

 

[Federberg]

As I said above, staying healthy is a skill. Luck has something to do with it, but only in specific instances - not as much over an entire career.

A major aspect of Roger's greatness is his remarkable health.

Well said.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

And in those 5 runs he went to 5 sets on five different occasions over 3 runs. He was hardly a sure thing. After all he had made 5 straight Wimbledon finals heading into the Rosol match right?

Right, except we're talking about 2009, when it was in the middle of that 5 straight runs to the final. The Rosol match was 3 years later when Nadal started being crap on grass. This makes no sense.

That's like saying Federer was always shaky at Roland Garros when he made 4 finals in 5 years between 2006-2011 because then he lost to Tsonga, Monfils, etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

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...

He was perfectly healthy and practicing fine before getting his poor sore tummy. Roger actually won the AO '06 having been on crutches just prior the the 2005 Masters final which he narrowly lost in 5 sets. There's a real man for ya, despite the flagging he gets from Nadal tards about being a narcissist, he's much less of a wimp when it comes to needing 18 days to get over a tummy bug :snicker

"God, it's killing me."

 

[brokenshoelace]

Staying healthy is indeed a skill. There's no denying that. But sometimes, you can get injured through no fault of your own. Bad luck. It happens. Are we really denying that?