Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Front242]

Just btw, Nadal "owned" Djokovic for years until Nadal declined noticeably and Djokovic hit his peak. Wait till all is said and done and they've all retired. After today's win I hope Roger doesn't cut the "I want to play a few more years" way down but if he keeps playing, he'll win more against Nadal. Best of 3 most likely from here on out.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Just btw, Nadal "owned" Djokovic for years until Nadal declined noticeably and Djokovic hit his peak. Wait till all is said and done and they've all retired. After today's win I hope Roger doesn't cut the "I want to play a few more years" way down but if he keeps playing, he'll win more against Nadal. Best of 3 most likely from here on out.

I don't think Federer cares about his H2h record against Nadal especially now he beat him in a GS final. I would say he probably cares about his h2h record against Djokovic

 

[Fiero425]

Just btw, Nadal "owned" Djokovic for years until Nadal declined noticeably and Djokovic hit his peak. Wait till all is said and done and they've all retired. After today's win I hope Roger doesn't cut the "I want to play a few more years" way down but if he keeps playing, he'll win more against Nadal. Best of 3 most likely from here on out.

I don't think Federer cares about his H2h record against Nadal especially now he beat him in a GS final. I would say he probably cares about his h2h record against Djokovic.

Well that's one way to overlook, ignore, and deflect a deficit! Why should he care more about his H2H rivalry with Nole; most of it being posted in the twilight of his career? He's been more competitive with Nole from the beginning; breaking streaks, extending him in major finals, and preventing win in Cinci! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

Well, nobody (except a brave few which includes me) gave a chance to Federer on this one, so we should count Nadal out. Almost impossible task, I agree, but those guys are almost unreal too.

I picked him to win in the poll and had an inkling that he might, but prepared myself for the worst.

Just btw, Nadal "owned" Djokovic for years until Nadal declined noticeably and Djokovic hit his peak. Wait till all is said and done and they've all retired. After today's win I hope Roger doesn't cut the "I want to play a few more years" way down but if he keeps playing, he'll win more against Nadal. Best of 3 most likely from here on out.

This isn't quite true, Front, and diminishes Novak's rise. Rafa was still very much in his peak in 2011, when Novak forcibly stole the crown of best player in the sport. As I've pointed out many times, Rafa's record against non-Novak opponents in 2010 (probably his best year) and 2011 is virtually identical. Rafa fans don't like to hear this, but Novak at his very best beat peak Rafa, and quite substantially.

Now of course Rafa came back and took the baton back in 2013 for awhile, but then Novak stole it again, and he started doing so in late 2013 when Rafa was still in great form. Now once Novak started steamrolling Rafa in 2015, Rafa was clearly a diminished player. But they were both basically in prime form from 2011 through Roland Garros in 2014, when Novak lead the h2h 12-7.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Even if Nadal won the Australian Open, I didn't think he would have catch Federer in the slams title count

This AO, even though it is only one slam, counted as 2 for all practical purposes for both the players. This is because, not only that they gain one, they would also deny the other guy one.
So, it is actually very significant.

If Rafa had won this one, he would be favorite to win RG (now he is probably cofavorite along with Novak). If he wins RG also, that would be just one slam separating them. That small separation would have given him even more motivation to try hard.

 

[Front242]

Didn't mean to diminish Novak, El Dude. I just get annoyed when Fiero and others slag Federer's h2h with Nadal when he whooped Novak for quite a while too. But yes, true, they were both clearly in their peaks in 2011. He only went a good bit ahead when Nadal was over the hill though and likewise it took till Federer was 34 till Novak got ahead. Give the guy a cookie for that. :clap

 

[GameSetAndMath]

After today's win I hope Roger doesn't cut the "I want to play a few more years" way down

I don't think Roger will retire soon, just because he has won this AO and reached 18. However, I expect him to play a very thin schedule (somewhat like Serena who played just 8 tourneys last year, but more than that, may be a dozen). Roger would not be worried about #1 or some other ranking. Would just be focusing on trying to peak for GSs.

 

[Front242]

Let's hope so.

 

[El Dude]

If Roger plays only a dozen tournaments this year, what would they be? I'm thinking:
The four Slams
World Tour Final
Masters - IW, Monte Carlo, Rome, Cincy, one of Shanghai or Paris
ATP 500 - Halle, Basel

That looks about right.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If Roger plays only a dozen tournaments this year, what would they be? I'm thinking:
The four Slams
World Tour Final
Masters - IW, Monte Carlo, Rome, Cincy, one of Shanghai or Paris
ATP 500 - Halle, Basel

That looks about right.

You missed out Dubai. That is almost like his home tourney. Also, this year he is committed to play in Stuttgart grass as he had signed up 2 year contract with them with hefty appearance fee and has only finished one year of that contract.

 

[shawnbm]

Roger says he is playing Miami and I sure hope he does, as he has not for a few years and I would like to see him along with Rafa, Novak and Andy. Those two Masters events should be gangbusters.

 

[shawnbm]

Doubt Rafa passes Roger, but this event gives me renewed hope in the great, warring Spanish Bull!! Ole!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just bumping this thread up!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger and Rafa have an age difference of about five years. Even though Rafa peaked early as a teenager, even though his playing style is not suitable for longevity and even though he has many injury issues, let us assume that both Rafa and Roger retire at the same age (although it is more likely that Rafa retires at an younger age than Roger). This assumption would mean, Rafa will have five years of extra time to catch up on
Roger's Slam Count.

Due to Rafa's superiority on clay, let us give RG of each of those five years to Rafa. Also, let us assume that he does not win any other slam any more. In reality, he may miss out on RG on an year, but compensate by winning some other slam in addition to RG in another year. Anyway, the point is that we can assume an average of one slam per year during those five years for Rafa.

Assuming Roger does not want Rafa to even equal his slam count, then Roger should build up a lead of 6 GS before retiring. The current lead of (4=19-15), may not suffice. Interestingly, this can serve as an aid for Roger to determine when it is safe to retire without worrying about Rafa catching up later on. If this were the only criteria affecting retirement (forgetting love of game, health, children understanding what he is doing etc, extra retirement money etc), I would say Roger should feel safe to retire once he builds a lead of 6.

Assuming, he wins USO this year [ BTW, the bookies are giving early odds of 9/4 to Fed and 4/1 to Rafa to win USO. It translates to 30% chance for Fed, 20% chance for Rafa and 50% chance for the rest of the field], the lead will be 5. That still won't be sufficient.

What do you folks think?

 

[Federberg]

I think you have to also consider the fact that of all the Big 4, Rafa is the only one who hasn't married or had kids. You have to think that's going to change in the next year or two. Xisca isn't getting any younger. Rafa seems like the sort of homebody who'll just jack it all in when that happens. Which is probably why he's been reticent to do that yet. In summary, the human factor is oft forgotten but hugely important

 

[El Dude]

I don't see Rafa winning Roland Garros five more times. I think at most he wins it 2-3 more times, and 1-2 other Slams. That gives an at-most rnage of 3-5 more total, or 18-20.

Again, at most. This is assuming Rafa stays at his current level and doesn't get injured. Remember, he's not getting any younger. In all likelihood he'll win 0-3 more Slams, so finish with 15-18.

In other words, I'd be very surprised if Rafa wins 5+ more to pass Roger's current 19. And while this Fedal resurgence is amazing, and it is tempting to think that Novak can also rebound and the three of them can end their careers with around 20 Slams each, we still have to temper our expectations and look to historical precedents: no player in the Open Era has won more than 4 Slams after turning 30, and only Laver and Rosewall have won 4 each. Maybe all three are going to break tradition and win 5+ Slams past 30, but it has never been done by ANY player, let alone three of the same general era.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think history has any relevance with modern conditioning techniques and technology. But even so it's hard for me to believe that these guys will continue at their current level of dominance. Already this season Thiem and Zverev has shown this year that they're very very close. I would actually give Thiem a shot at getting over the hump before Zverev because he already has his man strength. I don't think Sasha is there quite yet. Thiem proved himself to me, by getting the RG semi again, and he seriously impressed me by how he's clearly tried to adapt his game to grass. That guy's for real

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I agree @Federberg. I feel that Thiem is one or two years away from surpassing Rafa on clay. He'll get a bit better, and Rafa will get a bit worse and they'll meet in the middle. And of course it is a long way from now until Roland Garros 2018 and a lot can happen.

But aren't you contradicting yourself bit? I mean, yes, modern conditioning techniques and technology is seemingly extending careers, but younger, stronger, hungrier players always arise - and isn't that part of the historical perspective? In other words, I don't think it is one or the other - either they'll revert to historical norms or they'll continue to win indefinitely because of modern stuff. Maybe it is a bit of both? That is, maybe the normal aging patterns are just being extended by a few years. But as I've said before, we'll know more in a two or three more years as Roger's generation is largely retired, and those that remain are mainly journeymen outside Slam seeding.

One thing we have to also keep in mind is that the generation that should be peaking now--those players in their mid-20s, or 22ish to 27ish, born 1989 to 94 or so, are quite weak as a group. The entire cohort is in danger of being leap-frogged by Alex Zverev (born 1997) and his posse. This weakness has facilitated greater dominance on the part of the Big Five, in my opinion.

So my view is that we're BOTH seeing something unprecedented AND historical inevitables will eventually assert themselves. The Big Four might hang on and dominate for another year or two, but certainly by 2019 or 2020 Zverev etc will be taking over. In fact, I think next year we're going to see Zverev joined in the top 20 by several more young players: Khachanov, Medvedev, Tiafoe, and Rublev are all rising, with Ruud and Shapovalov not far behind. And perhaps others.

But before I go on too long, here's an interesting part: the second tier guys like Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga are being replaced by the best of younger generations. Already Nishikori and Raonic have established themselves as top 10 guys, Thiem among the slightly younger players, and Dimitrov is on the cusp. Zverev is also about to creep in, and possibly Goffin and/or Pouille. But as this is happening, the same old Big 4/5 stay at the top...my point being, the sea change is happening, just below the surface (elite). Eventually their hegemony will be broken...I mean it has to, right? Right?!

 

[Federberg]

Yes, I agree @Federberg. I feel that Thiem is one or two years away from surpassing Rafa on clay. He'll get a bit better, and Rafa will get a bit worse and they'll meet in the middle. And of course it is a long way from now until Roland Garros 2018 and a lot can happen.

But aren't you contradicting yourself bit? I mean, yes, modern conditioning techniques and technology is seemingly extending careers, but younger, stronger, hungrier players always arise - and isn't that part of the historical perspective? In other words, I don't think it is one or the other - either they'll revert to historical norms or they'll continue to win indefinitely because of modern stuff. Maybe it is a bit of both? That is, maybe the normal aging patterns are just being extended by a few years. But as I've said before, we'll know more in a two or three more years as Roger's generation is largely retired, and those that remain are mainly journeymen outside Slam seeding.

One thing we have to also keep in mind is that the generation that should be peaking now--those players in their mid-20s, or 22ish to 27ish, born 1989 to 94 or so, are quite weak as a group. The entire cohort is in danger of being leap-frogged by Alex Zverev (born 1997) and his posse. This weakness has facilitated greater dominance on the part of the Big Five, in my opinion.

So my view is that we're BOTH seeing something unprecedented AND historical inevitables will eventually assert themselves. The Big Four might hang on and dominate for another year or two, but certainly by 2019 or 2020 Zverev etc will be taking over. In fact, I think next year we're going to see Zverev joined in the top 20 by several more young players: Khachanov, Medvedev, Tiafoe, and Rublev are all rising, with Ruud and Shapovalov not far behind. And perhaps others.

But before I go on too long, here's an interesting part: the second tier guys like Berdych, Ferrer, and Tsonga are being replaced by the best of younger generations. Already Nishikori and Raonic have established themselves as top 10 guys, Thiem among the slightly younger players, and Dimitrov is on the cusp. Zverev is also about to creep in, and possibly Goffin and/or Pouille. But as this is happening, the same old Big 4/5 stay at the top...my point being, the sea change is happening, just below the surface (elite). Eventually their hegemony will be broken...I mean it has to, right? Right?!

I don't think I'm contradicting myself at all. You keep talking about what was done historically at 30+yrs. That comparison is not really relevant because of the points I mentioned. I then went on to talk about some of the youngsters, in particular Thiem and Zverev, possibly even Krygios. Not yet ready to talk about any others, they have to show something first. My key point is that you're extrapolating into the future with scant regard to the human element. Is Rafa going to get serious about his relationship and start producing mini-me's? Will Novak's marriage hold (assuming what Mac revealed is true)? What impacts will all these things have on their play? It's very easy to draw charts based on current form and then claim 3 - 5 more RG titles for Rafa. I'm just saying it's not that easy, and I don't see why I should assign much credibility to it. I'm happy to discuss static systems over the next 2 slams perhaps. But when you start talking about a years? Nah... that's getting into Harry Potter territory to me..

 

[mrzz]

From 2010 on, a lot of completely unexpected things happened:

* Djokovic´s 2011
* Nadal´s 2013 (given his injury break before that and the Djokovic streak on him)
* Cilic´s USOPEN in 2014
* Wawrinka 2.0 from 2014 on
* Fedal ressurgence in 2017

Given that, I would be very careful making predictions. Anyway, GSM´s original line of thought makes sense, but I would not assume one slam per year on average. Even with @Federberg ´s comments in mind (which make sense), if you take Federer as an example (the only possible example we have now), his post 30 average is quite bellow 1 per year. 2 every three years is still a bit optimistic.