Will Nadal pass Federer?

[El Dude]

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..

The reason I don't take the personal lives of players into account is that there's no way to predict how they'll impact performance. Maybe Rafa wants to be a homebody, maybe he wants to get out of the house more often and focus on tennis. Heck, maybe he and Xisca don't want kids at all.

The contradiction that I see is that on one hand you're saying ignore history because these guys have better training, conditioning etc, yet on the other you're talking about improving young guys that could increasingly challenge them. The reason I see this as contradictory is that a major reason great players stop winning, historically speaking, is that younger players surpass them. So you're saying these guys will eventually catch them, but ignore history...isn't that a bit contradictory?

Of course the bottom line is that we just don't know. And I agree: we can really only look ahead at the next Slam or two. I like to extrapolate and speculate, but I never take it all that seriously. But also note that I'm not predicting 3-5 Slams for Rafa. Re-read what i wrote above. I said it is more likely that he wins in the 0-3 range than in the 3-5 range, which I called his "at most" range. Meaning, that's how he'll do if he continues as is, stays health for another few years. But his history shows us that is very unlikely, which is why I give the 0-3 range as most likely.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

I am not trying to predict the minimum or even the expected number of Slams Rafa can win. I am more focused on the maximum number of Slams he could possibly win. The reason being Fed should feel safe at the time of retiring than sorry later. It appears that you essentially agree with me that a lead of 6 or more is safe zone in the worst case (while a lead of 4 or more may be safe in the average or expected scenario). As Fed has to retire without having vision of what will happen in future, I would say he should try to build a lead of 6+ (it is the lead that matters, not the actual # of slams) before considering retiring.

 

[Federberg]

The reason I don't take the personal lives of players into account is that there's no way to predict how they'll impact performance. Maybe Rafa wants to be a homebody, maybe he wants to get out of the house more often and focus on tennis. Heck, maybe he and Xisca don't want kids at all.

The contradiction that I see is that on one hand you're saying ignore history because these guys have better training, conditioning etc, yet on the other you're talking about improving young guys that could increasingly challenge them. The reason I see this as contradictory is that a major reason great players stop winning, historically speaking, is that younger players surpass them. So you're saying these guys will eventually catch them, but ignore history...isn't that a bit contradictory?

Of course the bottom line is that we just don't know. And I agree: we can really only look ahead at the next Slam or two. I like to extrapolate and speculate, but I never take it all that seriously. But also note that I'm not predicting 3-5 Slams for Rafa. Re-read what i wrote above. I said it is more likely that he wins in the 0-3 range than in the 3-5 range, which I called his "at most" range. Meaning, that's how he'll do if he continues as is, stays health for another few years. But his history shows us that is very unlikely, which is why I give the 0-3 range as most likely.

Again you miss my point. You keep talking about history, but it doesn't provide comparative data. Those guys did not have the conditioning techniques this era enjoys so why is it relevant when it comes to how long these guys can last. It's using data without appreciating its value imho.

That has nothing to do with the youngsters. Where they are concerned I see only two, possibly three guys who could be a factor as early as the next slam. Remember they don't have to win it to deny the top guys the prize. I think that's the mistake you're making. It's enough for a Zverev to knock out Roger or Rafa to impact their legacy, they don't have to win. They are plenty good enough to do that now in my view, so why on earth am I going to take a 2 or 3 year projection seriously?

 

[Moxie]

I get the point that we really can't predict what will happen in the next 2-5 years, even though Roger is rewriting the script, and Rafa is defying predictions of his demise. (As to his play not being "suitable to longevity," he's been on the tour for 16 years, winning Majors in 11 of the last 13.) However, I understand GSM's point about asking the question of what it takes for Roger to protect his Slam lead, and Rafa is the obvious first issue (and subject of the OP's original question.) Darth has been saying since 2012 that RF can't rest on 17. Had Roger not had a resurgence this year, and only Rafa, then likely Rafa would be at 16, one away from Roger...very doable. I'll say this about one of the speculation points in the mix: Rafa has said that he wants to be home to raise his children. Possible health issues aside, this is a factor that makes me think he won't likely last to the same chronological age as Roger when they each retire.

 

[El Dude]

I am not trying to predict the minimum or even the expected number of Slams Rafa can win. I am more focused on the maximum number of Slams he could possibly win. The reason being Fed should feel safe at the time of retiring than sorry later. It appears that you essentially agree with me that a lead of 6 or more is safe zone in the worst case (while a lead of 4 or more may be safe in the average or expected scenario). As Fed has to retire without having vision of what will happen in future, I would say he should try to build a lead of 6+ (it is the lead that matters, not the actual # of slams) before considering retiring.

Yes, agreed. I think another point to consider is that all of this assumes Rafa out-last Roger. That may not be the case. I predicted some time ago that they'd retire within a year of each other, and given Roger's longevity I'm going to stick with that. Who knows, though.

 

[El Dude]

Again you miss my point. You keep talking about history, but it doesn't provide comparative data. Those guys did not have the conditioning techniques this era enjoys so why is it relevant when it comes to how long these guys can last. It's using data without appreciating its value imho.

That has nothing to do with the youngsters. Where they are concerned I see only two, possibly three guys who could be a factor as early as the next slam. Remember they don't have to win it to deny the top guys the prize. I think that's the mistake you're making. It's enough for a Zverev to knock out Roger or Rafa to impact their legacy, they don't have to win. They are plenty good enough to do that now in my view, so why on earth am I going to take a 2 or 3 year projection seriously?

What I don't get is what you're disagreeing with me about. I don't have a solid projection as to how many Slams these guys will win, just offering a few narratives to consider about what might happen, depending on different factors. I talk about history because it gives us precedents, but I'm not saying that it locks us in like some predestined formula. History gives us patterns to look at, and possibly likely outcomes to consider, but it doesn't determine the future. It is also relevant because of a few factors not being mentioned:

1) Most of the elite of Roger's generation (born 1979-83, or two calendar years of Roger's birth year) is retired and gone: Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Coria, Ljubicic. Roger is still around, obviously, as is a declining Ferrer, a reduced Youzhny, and an almost-gone Robredo. Lopez and Karlovic have had resurgences, and a bunch of journeymen are still hanging on, but the point is, most of the elite of that generation are gone. Of the big title winners born 1979-83, only Roger and Ferrer are still playing. Was their conditioning and technology significantly worse? Did they just give up too soon? We can rationalize it how we want, and maybe even those views have some truth, but the fact is that most of them are retired - so "Extended Peak Theory" doesn't really apply to Roger's generation.

2) Rafa's generation, born 1984-88, are still in charge, but also showing signs of slipping. Are Berdych, Tsonga, Monfils, and Gasquet still peak? Both have slipped out of the top 10. Lesser players like Almagro, Simon, Verdasco, Isner, also seem to be slipping.

3) The weakness of the 1989-90s group, with no elite players or Slam winners (yet). This has helped give older players a "softer" decline.

So here's the thing: the very cream of the crop--the Big Four plus Wawrinka--do seem to be extending their prime years into their 30s. I've said a few times that Stan has actually broken precedents about when a multi-Slam winner starts winning Slams that have existed for the entire Open Era. A few others also seem to be having peak years late in their careers (e.g. Lopez, Muller, etc). But many, even most, aren't - including most of the good players of Roger's generation, and some of the better players of the Rafa-Novak group. Now maybe something has developed in the last five years or so to help these guys out, but then we veer into possibly nefarious territory. But regardless, if these guys are benefiting from improved conditioning, technology or "other things" that weren't available 5+ years ago, why aren't the second tier also? Why is it selective?

I honestly have no idea. I just think we need to inquire deeper, and consider everything - and that includes being aware of history, not just writing it off because Roger won two Slams at 35 and Rafa is resurgent at 31. The fact of the matter is, these guys have still experienced the effects of aging, and presumably Andy and Novak are experiencing the effects of aging. I've said before that one of the main differences between a player peak and post-peak is that post-peak they can still reach peak levels, but just not as frequently. A lot of what aging is, is about reducing the degree to which a player can find that best form - whether through injury, slower recovery, reduced skills, psychological factors, etc.

Everyone declines in different ways, and at different times. Open Era history provides us with a "typical player" decline in which a player starts slipping sometime in his late 20s, and declines quickly somewhere in the 30-32 range. Very few players have remained close to their top form after around 32 years old. There are outliers on either side, of course. Maybe those ranges are being pushed back, but by how much? Again, we shouldn't take extreme exceptions as the rule--especially when those exceptions are Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, probably the two best players of the Open Era, if not in Earth's 4.5 billion year history.

So again, I'm no sure what I'm missing here. Improved conditioning and technology? Of course, but they are factors within a very complex web of considerations.

 

[Federberg]

What I don't get is what you're disagreeing with me about. I don't have a solid projection as to how many Slams these guys will win, just offering a few narratives to consider about what might happen, depending on different factors. I talk about history because it gives us precedents, but I'm not saying that it locks us in like some predestined formula. History gives us patterns to look at, and possibly likely outcomes to consider, but it doesn't determine the future. It is also relevant because of a few factors not being mentioned:

That's exactly my point. There is no precedent for the 30+ performances we are seeing in this era. These guys have conditioning techniques that simply didn't exist possibly even a decade ago. Talking about what the Rosewall's of yore has no bearing whatsoever. If it was just the top guys out-performing after 30 you might have a case. But Gilles freaking Mueller and Feliciano doing what they're doing (I'm not even mentioning Stan), tells us this is something different entirely. So all I'm saying is dump the history books

 

[Federberg]

So here's the thing: the very cream of the crop--the Big Four plus Wawrinka--do seem to be extending their prime years into their 30s. I've said a few times that Stan has actually broken precedents about when a multi-Slam winner starts winning Slams that have existed for the entire Open Era. A few others also seem to be having peak years late in their careers (e.g. Lopez, Muller, etc). But many, even most, aren't - including most of the good players of Roger's generation, and some of the better players of the Rafa-Novak group. Now maybe something has developed in the last five years or so to help these guys out, but then we veer into possibly nefarious territory. But regardless, if these guys are benefiting from improved conditioning, technology or "other things" that weren't available 5+ years ago, why aren't the second tier also? Why is it selective?

It isn't selective at all. We just don't notice as much because we judge everything by title wins. But even there, we see improved performances of the 30+ guys, over and above what they achieved in their 20s. In fact if you want to be really precise, one could argue that Roger compared to some of the other 30+ guys is underperforming relative to his achievements in his 20s versus what they're doing. Far fetched I know, but it could be read like that

 

[Federberg]

Everyone declines in different ways, and at different times. Open Era history provides us with a "typical player" decline in which a player starts slipping sometime in his late 20s, and declines quickly somewhere in the 30-32 range. Very few players have remained close to their top form after around 32 years old. There are outliers on either side, of course. Maybe those ranges are being pushed back, but by how much? Again, we shouldn't take extreme exceptions as the rule--especially when those exceptions are Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, probably the two best players of the Open Era, if not in Earth's 4.5 billion year history.

Again... it's time to dump this reference history. This is what I am disagreeing with. I know as a statistician (or numbers guy) you want to use a fully populated dataset to argue your point. I humbly suggest that something has happened that may well be as profound as the move from wooden racquets. I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it. The paradigm has shifted.

In another few years we may look back and argue that Zverev's achievements, while on paper nowhere near as impressive as the likes of Becker and Nadal should be upgraded because of the higher level of difficulty this paradigm shift has resulted in. Just saying...

 

[Ricardo]

I've said before that one of the main differences between a player peak and post-peak is that post-peak they can still reach peak levels, but just not as frequently. A lot of what aging is, is about reducing the degree to which a player can find that best form - whether through injury, slower recovery, reduced skills, psychological factors, etc.

one'd think an expert is talking here, given the tone.......they reached peak levels? how? stats? or such conclusive and authoritative statement is based on years of experience and expertise?

 

[mrzz]

El Dude´s long post above is quite reasonable, but Federberg got a very important point, which he summarized nicely in the phrase "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it." Being a physicist, one thing I know is that you cannot forget the phenomena (not the data, the phenomena). The metaphor in our case means the game itself. If you see clips of the top guys playing in the 70´s, 80´s and even 90´s, it is clear that they are playing a different game than today´s. Be it apparel technology, nutrition, modern training techniques, tactical evolution (probably everything put together), the point is that the sport has changed -- the phenomena has changed -- so the data will change accordingly. I have conjectured before that on this new "tennis 2.0" days teenagers and youngster are simply not equipped to succeed. Not a coincidence, the last successful teenager was Nadal, which had an adult body and surely more tennis IQ than 99,99% of the field even when he was 17.

On top of that, we have arguably the three most talented (finally I can use the world "talent" in a way that I like!!!) players of all time sharing the courts. They are outliers by definition. So, to be honest, we need to wait not only those guys retire, but a few years more, as they have "tainted" a few generations around them, some were pushed to their limits, some had their developing lines cut short.

 

[El Dude]

Well that's exactly my point, @mrzz. I am not saying that you're wrong, @Federberg, and I agree that "something has changed." What I am saying is that its a bit too early to make conclusive statements about aging patterns, because the main outliers are three mega-greats, and that we have to take a broad array of data and perspectives into account. It isn't history or eyeball impressions, but both and more.

It is also worth pointing out that while the tour has aged recently, history has fluctuated. There's a kind of soft "V-pattern" with the early years of the Open Era being dominated by older players, then players getting younger in the late 70s with 1986 being the point when the average age of the top 50 was at its lowest (23.2 years old). It crept up a bit in the late 90s, but didn't return to 70s levels until 2010 or so, and has increased sharply from there.

By the way, I'm not a statistician, certainly not by training, I just like looking at numbers and historical trajectories because they help balance out subjective perspectives. But this insistence on arguing against what I'm saying as being the "numbers guy" is a bit of a strawman, in my opinion, because I never take an extreme stats-only view (there are people that do that in sports, but they're mainly baseball nerds ). Again, I just believe in actually investigating whether subjective opinions can be backed up by actual numbers, otherwise you end up with people like Ricardo who try to win arguments through the force of machismo, or appeal to their own supposed expertise. I also find numbers and historical trajectories to be interesting and informative.

 

[El Dude]

Anyhow, I think we need to include about five factors in a discussion about how the sport has changed in recent years:

1) A weak generation of players born from roughly 1989 into the mid-90s.
2) A particularly great group of elites in the Big Four, plus Stan the last few years.
3) Improved technology and conditioning.
4) The context in which the game is played - from court homogenization, to the particularities of the ranking system that Federer mentioned in a recent interview that make it harder for young players to rise up the rankings.
5) An "x-factor" - something that doesn't fit into the above and/or is not fully understood (or illegal).

The main thing I'm disagreeing with you about, @Federberg, is your insistence that it is only or mostly #3. Maybe that's even the biggest factor, but we also have to include the other three factors, and with an openness to something we don't understand yet (5).

Factors 1 and 2 challenge the idea that we're living in a new era in which players will start maintaining peak form deep into their 30s. I mean, that is possible of course, but if we include 1 and 2 in the conversation, at the least it is somewhat diminished because we don't know how the Big Five would be performing if they had stronger competition from the younger players.

While I think we need more data--and a few more years--to make conclusive statements, my current impression is that the game has indeed changed, and players are both reaching and remaining in their primes later than before, but that it isn't as extreme as we might think simply by looking at Roger's performance this year. Where from the late 70s to the 2000s, players reached their prime sometime in the 20-22 range, and started seriously declining sometime in the 29-32 range, maybe those ranges have been pushed back to something like 21-24 and 31-34ish. But I'm not prepared to say it is much older than that, at least not until we get another two or three years under our belts. In particular, I'm very curious to see how Rafa, Novak, and Andy age, as all three are 30-31 years old. I think in another couple years we'll have a better sense of these things.

 

[Federberg]

Well that's exactly my point, @mrzz. I am not saying that you're wrong, @Federberg, and I agree that "something has changed." What I am saying is that its a bit too early to make conclusive statements about aging patterns, because the main outliers are three mega-greats, and that we have to take a broad array of data and perspectives into account. It isn't history or eyeball impressions, but both and more.

Actually I think there is something a bit more distributive happening that's escaped all our notice. Take Gilles Mueller for example. 34yrs old I believe, and only won his first title on the ATP this year. Feliciano Lopez is arguably playing his strongest tennis in his career in the last few years. It's not just the big boys. In fact I'm suggesting that in our Big 3 focus on these forums we are missing the real paradigm shift that's been happening

 

[Federberg]

The main thing I'm disagreeing with you about, @Federberg, is your insistence that it is only or mostly #3. Maybe that's even the biggest factor, but we also have to include the other three factors, and with an openness to something we don't understand yet (5).

I have never said that. What I have done is rejected your persistently bringing up what 30yr+ players have done in the past. It simply cannot be a valid comparison if, as you seem to be doing, you concede that something real is happening

 

[Federberg]

While I think we need more data--and a few more years--to make conclusive statements, my current impression is that the game has indeed changed, and players are both reaching and remaining in their primes later than before, but that it isn't as extreme as we might think simply by looking at Roger's performance this year. Where from the late 70s to the 2000s, players reached their prime sometime in the 20-22 range, and started seriously declining sometime in the 29-32 range, maybe those ranges have been pushed back to something like 21-24 and 31-34ish. But I'm not prepared to say it is much older than that, at least not until we get another two or three years under our belts. In particular, I'm very curious to see how Rafa, Novak, and Andy age, as all three are 30-31 years old. I think in another couple years we'll have a better sense of these things.

I rather suspect the data is there already. As I've said in my preceding posts, you need to stop thinking about Roger and Rafa. What's going on with the lesser over 30s is what really matters. The sample is therefore much larger, and thus fewer additional years than you think are necessary

 

[El Dude]

One more thing (I promise...for now, at least): Before this year, 31 years old has been the last year in which multiple players won Slams at any given age. In other words, from 32 to 37, only one Slam has been won per age...until Roger. Now we have a little spike at age 35, with 3 Slams won.

Roger could be an outlier, or he could be leading the way - or maybe a bit of both. But one clear benchmark we will be able to look at is whether anyone else wins Slams at age 32 an older. Right now the only players to win Slams at age 32+ in the Open Era are Ken Rosewall (4), Andres Gimeno (1), Andre Agassi (1), and Roger Federer (2). Seven other players won Slams at age 31, so it is a huge drop-off from 31 to 32.

 

[El Dude]

I have never said that. What I have done is rejected your persistently bringing up what 30yr+ players have done in the past. It simply cannot be a valid comparison if, as you seem to be doing, you concede that something real is happening

OK, then what we're disagreeing on seems to be this: you seem to think the past is completely irrelevant and we're in a brand new era; I'm saying that the past is relevant, we just don't know to what degree yet - that is, to what degree players are breaking from it.

In other words, you're saying "It is black not white, and you're saying white," and I'm saying, "No, I'm not saying white, I'm saying it is shades of gray...but we don't know what kind of gray we're looking at yet."

 

[Federberg]

One more thing (I promise...for now, at least): Before this year, 31 years old has been the last year in which multiple players won Slams at any given age. In other words, from 32 to 37, only one Slam has been won per age...until Roger. Now we have a little spike at age 35, with 3 Slams won.

Roger could be an outlier, or he could be leading the way - or maybe a bit of both. But one clear benchmark we will be able to look at is whether anyone else wins Slams at age 32 an older. Right now the only players to win Slams at age 32+ in the Open Era are Ken Rosewall (4), Andres Gimeno (1), Andre Agassi (1), and Roger Federer (2). Seven other players won Slams at age 31, so it is a huge drop-off from 31 to 32.

I'm going to assume that this isn't part of our discussion Because I've tried to tell you a number of times now that your focus on the slam winners is nothing to do with my point

 

[Federberg]

OK, then what we're disagreeing on seems to be this: you seem to think the past is completely irrelevant and we're in a brand new era; I'm saying that the past is relevant, we just don't know to what degree yet - that is, to what degree players are breaking from it.

In other words, you're saying "It is black not white, and you're saying white," and I'm saying, "No, I'm not saying white, I'm saying it is shades of gray...but we don't know what kind of gray we're looking at yet."

Lol! You sort of lost me there. From my perspective whenever you try to project what you think the likes of Roger and Rafa are going to do. You persist in making reference to players in the distant past at similar ages. My point is that if what I think is happening is correct, then what over 30s did 40 years ago is utterly irrelevant to what is/ will happen now. Even if you ignore my suspicion, trying to extrapolate from historic outliers has never been a fruitful exercise in my experience. The irony is that I suspect that you're trying to use historic outliers to map out a future for guys in this era who I suspect aren't even outliers in terms of relative performance in any case