Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Federberg]

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.

I'm not going to claim it was obvious, but a bit of common sense and observation was all that was needed. Not robotic linear thinking...

 

[mrzz]

I didn't. I argued repeatedly that a guy who was still consistently getting to semis and finals couldn't be written off.

Count me in that wagon too.

 

[El Dude]

I see you're looking for a fight again, @Federberg. Not interested - my days of needing to prove my masculinity are long finished .

But seriously though, if you thought last year that Roger would win another Slam, good for you. The vast majority of folks didn't. But a couple things: One, I never said "couldn't." I just thought it was unlikely. Secondly, you and @Moxie are misunderstanding my perspective on looking at past data; I see it as useful information but NOT a "firm guide," or some kind of "linear thinking." It isn't either/or: either the past is dead and gone and will never repeat, or we're in an entirely new paradigm where anything could happen. Its a bit of both.

 

[Federberg]

I see you're looking for a fight again, @Federberg. Not interested - my days of needing to prove my masculinity are long finished .

But seriously though, if you thought last year that Roger would win another Slam, good for you. The vast majority of folks didn't. But a couple things: One, I never said "couldn't." I just thought it was unlikely. Secondly, you and @Moxie are misunderstanding my perspective on looking at past data; I see it as useful information but NOT a "firm guide," or some kind of "linear thinking." It isn't either/or: either the past is dead and gone and will never repeat, or we're in an entirely new paradigm where anything could happen. Its a bit of both.

Nope, just being factual. You're the one calling me silly mate, which seems like fighting talk

You claim Fedal only won slams this year because Novak was out, but I seem to recall Novak being present for AO and RG? Perhaps I'm mistaken.. What's the point of coming out with comments like that attempting to devalue the good works of other players? Should we not credit Novak when he was in his pomp because Fedal were clearly not playing at their normal high level? It's an ultimately futile exercise. But that doesn't stop you from making your prognostications. Your business anyway. I just think that if we've learnt anything from this year it's appreciating the level that Fedal can still reach, and stop writing them off

 

[Federberg]

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.

Awwwww.. leave him be. He's my pet stalker!

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

So you are not giving Rafa any credit for taken control of the match..maybe one day

 

[El Dude]

Nope, just being factual. You're the one calling me silly mate, which seems like fighting talk

You claim Fedal only won slams this year because Novak was out, but I seem to recall Novak being present for AO and RG? Perhaps I'm mistaken.. What's the point of coming out with comments like that attempting to devalue the good works of other players? Should we not credit Novak when he was in his pomp because Fedal were clearly not playing at their normal high level? It's an ultimately futile exercise. But that doesn't stop you from making your prognostications. Your business anyway. I just think that if we've learnt anything from this year it's appreciating the level that Fedal can still reach, and stop writing them off

Yes, you are mistaken. I did NOT say "Fedal only won slams this year because Novak was out." Clearly Roger was at a higher level in the first few months than we've seen since at least 2012, maybe 2009, and Rafa is at his best level since early 2014. But surely Novak being out didn't hurt? I am not so sure that Fedal would have won all four Slams if Novak was playing at a high level.

So yeah, a futile exercise - which is why I'm wondering why you're engaging in it. I'm not.

The "prognostications" are not really any different than any fan of tennis speculating about what might happen. I'm not sure why mine offend you more than anyone else's.

But yeah, I agree with the last sentence. I'm not writing them off anymore. But I'm also not assuming that either one can maintain this for years upon years.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I don't know how the rest of the year would have unfolded, but nothing would have stopped Nadal from winning RG. I don't want to revisit the 2009 debacle but circumstances were different this year. He was going to win it even if he somehow lacked motivation (which was never an issue for Nadal so it's a weird hypothetical, especially at RG where he hadn't won since 2014). So let's say Nadal doesn't end up winning the US Open, we're still talking about him likely gaining ground on Roger (though I guess Roger could have won both WImbledon and the US Open).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Forget about Roger being written off this time last year. I distinctly remember so many people (former players, journalists, posters) writing him off in 2008, when he did not win three slams in a row. Moreover, he had been written off since then many times.

The same thing applies to writing off Nadal also.

When Roger was just a few weeks short of catching Sampras's record of weeks at #1, I myself was personally guilty of thinking that Roger will never be able to break that record. I had not written off Roger from winning Slams at that point, but thought that to have consistent performance over an year necessary to get to #1 has already gone by. But, he did it be becoming #1 again in 2012 just after winning the Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, you are mistaken. I did NOT say "Fedal only won slams this year because Novak was out." Clearly Roger was at a higher level in the first few months than we've seen since at least 2012, maybe 2009, and Rafa is at his best level since early 2014. But surely Novak being out didn't hurt? I am not so sure that Fedal would have won all four Slams if Novak was playing at a high level.

So yeah, a futile exercise - which is why I'm wondering why you're engaging in it. I'm not.

The "prognostications" are not really any different than any fan of tennis speculating about what might happen. I'm not sure why mine offend you more than anyone else's.

But yeah, I agree with the last sentence. I'm not writing them off anymore. But I'm also not assuming that either one can maintain this for years upon years.

I'm, too, am not sure why so much debate over how various posters or anyone in particular arrives at her/his guesses as to the future. We trade in prognostication around here, for fun, and it's all so much morning fog until it burns off, and then the future becomes the now. I get both of your arguments. Anyway, I love @Federberg's point that they are both so great that we couldn't count them out. And hurray! With which you agree. Personally, I was starting to just hope that Rafa would pass Pete, so I'm over the moon. As to Novak, obviously it doesn't hurt that he's been a non-factor, but I think him not featuring at the AO probably helped Rafa more than Roger. Rafa still had emotional baggage with him, and they were slated to meet in SFs. And Rafa was starting slower in his comeback than Fed, who came back at 90 mph. Whoever would have gotten out of that SF between Rafa/Novak, had it been played, I still think this year's Roger would have beaten either.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, you are mistaken. I did NOT say "Fedal only won slams this year because Novak was out." Clearly Roger was at a higher level in the first few months than we've seen since at least 2012, maybe 2009, and Rafa is at his best level since early 2014. But surely Novak being out didn't hurt? I am not so sure that Fedal would have won all four Slams if Novak was playing at a high level.

So yeah, a futile exercise - which is why I'm wondering why you're engaging in it. I'm not.

The "prognostications" are not really any different than any fan of tennis speculating about what might happen. I'm not sure why mine offend you more than anyone else's.

But yeah, I agree with the last sentence. I'm not writing them off anymore. But I'm also not assuming that either one can maintain this for years upon years.

Lol! Parsing much? Look at post #519. Oh! Excuse me... they won "partially" because Novak was out. Even though he missed what... one slam? Have your cake and eat it if you want. I'm not sure Novak would have won 12 slams if Fedal had been playing at their highest levels. I'm not sure Stan would have won the US Open if if... all woulda coulda BS. See how "silly" it is? You come out with all this stuff then try to slither your way out of the cul de sacs you enter. Suit yourself. I don't see many others going down that line of nonsense unless it's biased fandom. At least that's understandable. You just like to pontificate, then cry innocence and objectivity. Whatever! I'm off to bed

 

[Federberg]

I'm, too, am not sure why so much debate over how various posters or anyone in particular arrives at her/his guesses as to the future. We trade in prognostication around here, for fun, and it's all so much morning fog until it burns off, and then the future becomes the now. I get both of your arguments. Anyway, I love @Federberg's point that they are both so great that we couldn't count them out. And hurray! With which you agree. Personally, I was starting to just hope that Rafa would pass Pete, so I'm over the moon. As to Novak, obviously it doesn't hurt that he's been a non-factor, but I think him not featuring at the AO probably helped Rafa more than Roger. Rafa still had emotional baggage with him, and they were slated to meet in SFs. And Rafa was starting slower in his comeback than Fed, who came back at 90 mph. Whoever would have gotten out of that SF between Rafa/Novak, had it been played, I still think this year's Roger would have beaten either.

Before I sign off..

I just get fed up with people trying to be so smart about things with bs logic to suit their biases. Don't give a crap about Novaks form against Rafa. The dude wasn't good enough to get to him in AO yet somehow we're supposed to diminish Fedal performances this year? If it was as simple and linear as some people here seem to think none of us would watch sports. Bunch of garbage opinions as far as I'm concerned. And why give Novak a pass when he was dominating and Fedal looked in decline but not the other way around? I seem to recall that Rafa tuned Novak on clay this year but somehow I'm supposed to believe the outcome would have been different in AO? This is sports not sudoku

 

[DarthFed]

I don't know how the rest of the year would have unfolded, but nothing would have stopped Nadal from winning RG. I don't want to revisit the 2009 debacle but circumstances were different this year. He was going to win it even if he somehow lacked motivation (which was never an issue for Nadal so it's a weird hypothetical, especially at RG where he hadn't won since 2014). So let's say Nadal doesn't end up winning the US Open, we're still talking about him likely gaining ground on Roger (though I guess Roger could have won both WImbledon and the US Open).

And what if Roger wasn't a weak mental midget during the 08 and 09 finals he lost to Nadal. There'd be no slam chase. There shouldn't be too much remorse for Nadal fans in the H2H, he's done way better than he should have. 12-10 off clay is still atrocious for Fed, and it used to be 8-10 somehow.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am not sure that any of the Big Four would have won even a single Slam, if Borg did not choose to retire.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And what if Roger wasn't a weak mental midget during the 08 and 09 finals he lost to Nadal. There'd be no slam chase. There shouldn't be too much remorse for Nadal fans in the H2H, he's done way better than he should have. 12-10 off clay is still atrocious for Fed, and it used to be 8-10 somehow.

Those what ifs are not the same. My "what if" is "what if this one guy won a match in which he led by a break in the fifth?" Your "what if" is "what if my favorite player hasn't been historically owned by my least favorite?" Not quite the same.

 

[Carol]

How much obsesión about FeDal. I'm personally very glad and proud of all the achievements that Rafa has got until now and even more proud after he has been many times and months out of the court because his injuries, he is the second player with more GS, he has one Gold Medal in individual and another one in doubles (not everyone is so good in doubles). What else his fans can ask? of course I wouldn't mind if he would get more titles and I hope he will but obviously besides his great talent it's incredible how he started to win GS at a very young age and how long he has been on the top after to go through many bad times. All my respect to such great athlete and person and a very good example for others young players

 

[DarthFed]

Those what ifs are not the same. My "what if" is "what if this one guy won a match in which he led by a break in the fifth?" Your "what if" is "what if my favorite player hasn't been historically owned by my least favorite?" Not quite the same.

Ah, the whole early break in the fifth argument. My argument is that a guy who has won a record number of Wimbledon's shouldn't have played a C- level match and lose to a guy who can't beat world 2,000 on grass. Your argument is that a guy with 1 AO should've beaten one with 5, after being clearly outplayed most of the match and never leading until the first game of the 5th.

 

[El Dude]

Lol! Parsing much? Look at post #519. Oh! Excuse me... they won "partially" because Novak was out. Even though he missed what... one slam? Have your cake and eat it if you want. I'm not sure Novak would have won 12 slams if Fedal had been playing at their highest levels. I'm not sure Stan would have won the US Open if if... all woulda coulda BS. See how "silly" it is? You come out with all this stuff then try to slither your way out of the cul de sacs you enter. Suit yourself. I don't see many others going down that line of nonsense unless it's biased fandom. At least that's understandable. You just like to pontificate, then cry innocence and objectivity. Whatever! I'm off to bed

Oh dear, Federberg's mad again. What's so controversial about the idea that Novak struggling made it easier for Fedal to win Slams?

 

[rahulpawar]

Lol! Parsing much? Look at post #519. Oh! Excuse me... they won "partially" because Novak was out. Even though he missed what... one slam? Have your cake and eat it if you want. I'm not sure Novak would have won 12 slams if Fedal had been playing at their highest levels. I'm not sure Stan would have won the US Open if if... all woulda coulda BS. See how "silly" it is? You come out with all this stuff then try to slither your way out of the cul de sacs you enter. Suit yourself. I don't see many others going down that line of nonsense unless it's biased fandom. At least that's understandable. You just like to pontificate, then cry innocence and objectivity. Whatever! I'm off to bed

I am a passive reader of the forum and rarely post stuff.

I have tended to agree with Federberg when he has not bought El Dude's hypothesis that "historically tennis players don't do well after 30" so "Federer and Nadal won't do well after 30". Federberg has generally given two arguments against El dude's hypothesis

a) The nutrition science and medical science has advanced which helps players to prolong their careers and even allow them to perform at a high level after 30. Federberg cites not only the performance of fedal for his argument but also of many other players such as Wawrinka, Lopez, Muller, karlovic etc. who have sort of gone against Dude's hypothesis and actually done well after 30 than before 30. I think this is a perfectly valid point. Maybe a proper case study could be done by someone to check if players are prolonging their careers in other sports also.

b) "Federer" and "Nadal" are just different players compared to anyone else before and hence, predicting their careers is just not possible. I agree with this point of Federberg's as well. Many "experts" and "data-enthu fans" have written off both Federer and Nadal quite a few times and these people have had to show some amnesic behaviour after Fedal came back.

Now having won all 4 grand slams, there is actual "empirical" evidence to support Federberg's arguments.

When Dude says struggling Novak made it easier for Fedal, sure it did. But so did struggling Federer and Nadal make it easier for Djoker in 2015 and some part of 2016. No one can perform at 100% all the time.

 

[Federberg]

Oh dear, Federberg's mad again. What's so controversial about the idea that Novak struggling made it easier for Fedal to win Slams?

Lol! I think you need more substance than your point to affect my emotional state buddy. But great to see you resorting to the puerile now. For someone with as much unwarranted intellectual pride as you that's as masculine as your concession is likely to be