Will Nadal pass Federer?

[DarthFed]

Fed should have another couple in him. Just has to be smart. I really feel he would've put a nail in the coffin of this argument if he didn't F up beyond all belief. Now the door is definitely open because, as GSM said, Rafa could win RG for many more years. I also think 2018 may be weak again especially if Nole doesn't come back strong. The youngsters still seem at least a year away from making a serious dent and I include Zverev in that. He's done nothing at a slam. No other yougsters really on the radar except maybe Shap.

But bottom line is Fed better not have any plans of being content. 19 is only great if Nadal doesn't hit it.

 

[Jelenafan]

Rafa: the key is if he can get a couple of HC Majors in the next couple of years. He's 1-3 at the AO and I don't see why he can't be competitive there if he stays healthy in Jan. The FO is a different anomaly, I don't see how he can't be a factor there for the next 3-4 years

It will be interesting if Carlos Moya is able to mix things up even more with Rafa as finally the man totally in charge.
Uncle Toni, it was a great run but I think it was past time for him to step side.

On the flip side, I can see Roger a factor on grass for even a couple more years. Ken Rosewall made Major finals at the ripe old age of 39.

 

[Federberg]

I would be surprised if Roger won more than one more Slam, and if Rafa won more than two. First of all, Roger is 36 and partially won two Slams this year because Novak was out. If Novak comes back strong, Roger wins one Slam next year at most, and maybe none.

I don't buy this notion that Rafa will play five more years. Is that based upon Roger's age? Rafa plays 2-3 more years, or until his body really starts breaking down. When was the last time he strung together two high level AND healthy seasons in a row? 2010-11? Hard to imaguine 2018 will be just as good as 2017, and let's be honest: like Roger, Rafa's season looks better than it actually was because Novak was out and he had some really easy paths to titles (according to Tennis Abstract, the US Open was the easiest path to a Slam title in 30 years!).

And let's not forget that there are some good young players getting better and better each year. If the Big Four continue to rule, I think 2018 is their last year, and unlike 2017, it won't be just Fedal. In 2019, Roger turns 38 and Rafa 33.

So my guess is that Roger wins 0-2 more, and finishes with 19-21. Rafa wins 0-4 more, and finishes with 16-20. The only way Rafa passes Roger is if A) Roger hits his low projection and B) Rafa hits his high projection. Pretty unlikely.

weren't you one of those saying it was likely that Roger's slam winning was over last year? You even had some clever logic explaining why...

 

[brokenshoelace]

That AO win for Roger was so huge. Even bigger in hindsight. I never thought Nadal would pass him and still don't, but if Rafa had won that final, they'd be sitting on 18 and 17 respectively, and then I think Nadal would have had a decent chance of at least tying him before it's all set and done.

 

[Federberg]

That AO win for Roger was so huge. Even bigger in hindsight. I never thought Nadal would pass him and still don't, but if Rafa had won that final, they'd be sitting on 18 and 17 respectively, and then I think Nadal would have had a decent chance of at least tying him before it's all set and done.

It really was mate. I was sick as a dog watching it (actually not watching it!) I spent all my time on my balcony smoking a cohiba and msging on the live thread. I've only felt that bad watching Wimbledon 09. Not surprisingly I've watched that final in full about 20 times since then.

Amazing to think that Rafa is a Courier better than Novak as things stand, and Roger is a Wilander better than Novak! These two are monstrously good

 

[britbox]

Agreed. 3 slams is too many to make up at this stage of the game - it's a hall of fame career in itself.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Agreed. 3 slams is too many to make up at this stage of the game - it's a hall of fame career in itself.

It really depends on Novak..if he is able to come back to his level, it could derail Rafa as well as Roger chances to add to their totals. I really feel that Rafa movement is still at the the sublime level which is needed for him to play the style of tennis he likes to play

 

[britbox]

It really depends on Novak..if he is able to come back to his level, it could derail Rafa as well as Roger chances to add to their totals. I really feel that Rafa movement is still at the the sublime level which is needed for him to play the style of tennis he likes to play

Big IF hanging over Novak, gigantic even. I'm thinking more and more that he will never get back to those heights... even so, we have two geriatrics (by tennis standards) and injuries, youngsters coming through and father time will be more of a factor than Novak (or Murray), who are no spring chickens either.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Big IF hanging over Novak, gigantic even. I'm thinking more and more that he will never get back to those heights... even so, we have two geriatrics (by tennis standards) and injuries, youngsters coming through and father time will be more of a factor than Novak (or Murray), who are no spring chickens either.

I am really concerned about Murray's hip problem. I hope its not chronic

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Big IF hanging over Novak, gigantic even. I'm thinking more and more that he will never get back to those heights... even so, we have two geriatrics (by tennis standards) and injuries, youngsters coming through and father time will be more of a factor than Novak (or Murray), who are no spring chickens either.

Some youngsters such as Taylor Fritz are going through father time as well, literally.

 

[El Dude]

weren't you one of those saying it was likely that Roger's slam winning was over last year? You even had some clever logic explaining why...

Don't be silly. Everyone thought his Slam-winning days were done, Federberg.

 

[Obsi]

Don't be silly.

@Federberg is polluting this forum.

 

[Moxie]

Don't be silly. Everyone thought his Slam-winning days were done, Federberg.

Everyone did, including Jim Courier who said that he was sure when he failed to take advantage of Djokovic losing his SF in 2014, when he then lost to Cilic. And Martina and PMac, asked at the same time, hemmed and hawed and never answered because they didn't want to say "No," but they never said yes. So no one thought he'd win another one, and I think Courier's reasons are as good as any...failure to capitalize. And then he did win 2 more. And so did Rafa. It is surprising.

 

[Front242]

@Federberg is polluting this forum.

Give it a rest. He's a much better poster than you and at least lives in the real world. By that I'm referring to your infamous Djokovic is better than Federer thread.

 

[imjimmy]

That AO win for Roger was so huge. Even bigger in hindsight. I never thought Nadal would pass him and still don't, but if Rafa had won that final, they'd be sitting on 18 and 17 respectively, and then I think Nadal would have had a decent chance of at least tying him before it's all set and done.

True. However things don't always work in a symmetrical fashion.
It is hard to change something in the past and expect to have similar outcomes.

If Nadal had won AO 2017, perhaps he would have had less motivation in F.O or UsOpen. (Per data -the year he won AO (2009) he flamed out for the rest of the year). Again had Federer lost the AO, maybe he would have made a bigger push for the UsOpen - where he seemed contend having won 2 slams before.

I'm just saying that had Nadal won AO 2017, it is not a given that he would have finished the year with 3 slams.

That being said Nadal was so close in the AO 2017, this hypothesis is not entirely without merit. And I'm sure he regrets letting the 3-1 and a break lead get away.

 

[Front242]

Have to reiterate that match should NEVER have gone to a 5th set and the only reason Nadal got back into the match was down to Federer's slop in sets 2 and 4. This is not a biased opinion either if people care to go back and re-watch it. Roger should have won that in straight sets.

 

[DarthFed]

^ it was the mental baggage that led to the garbage sets. I thought Rafa's level didn't change much during the match aside from picking it up after set 1 just a bit. Roger's fluctuated a lot as you said.

After that he settled down and beat Rafa easily on two slow HC's. I'd be interested to see them play in Fall hopefully with Roger back to normal. I think slam wise and possibly H2H wise Roger may have breathed new life into Nads with his idiotic scheduling but hopefully not.

 

[Federberg]

Don't be silly. Everyone thought his Slam-winning days were done, Federberg.

I didn't. I argued repeatedly that a guy who was still consistently getting to semis and finals couldn't be written off. One of the most absurd things that people posted included giving the likes of Cilic a greater chance of winning more slams than Federer which frankly was quite retarded. Perhaps you were the one being silly? I think that's been quite definitely proved don't you?

 

[Federberg]

Everyone did, including Jim Courier who said that he was sure when he failed to take advantage of Djokovic losing his SF in 2014, when he then lost to Cilic. And Martina and PMac, asked at the same time, hemmed and hawed and never answered because they didn't want to say "No," but they never said yes. So no one thought he'd win another one, and I think Courier's reasons are as good as any...failure to capitalize. And then he did win 2 more. And so did Rafa. It is surprising.

I was both surprised and not surprised to be honest. The stats for the last 4 slams before Roger's win in the AO showed that he was going deeper than anyone else if I remember correctly.... even Novak (haven't checked that recently but I think that's right). So it seemed absurd to me that he could be written off.

But the likes of El Dude who want to call me silly now were pontificating about what tennis players in the distant past had done after their 30s. Anyway... it's clear that all that nonsense has been proved to be just vapour now...

 

[Moxie]

I was both surprised and not surprised to be honest. The stats for the last 4 slams before Roger's win in the AO showed that he was going deeper than anyone else if I remember correctly.... even Novak (haven't checked that recently but I think that's right). So it seemed absurd to me that he could be written off.

But the likes of El Dude who want to call me silly now were pontificating about what tennis players in the distant past had done after their 30s. Anyway... it's clear that all that nonsense has been proved to be just vapour now...

I do remember you arguing with him that there seemed to be a new paradigm, and that they old models weren't necessarily relevant, or something to that effect, and it turns out you were right to have suspected that we couldn't count on the past as a firm guide, giving what we've been seeing from the older players in the last few years.