Will Nadal pass Federer?

[the AntiPusher]

The asshole doing 60% is good enough. I don't want to live in a world with him at 70% conversion.

Did you see espn bodo's blog on espn ..he doesnt care much for Raplhy either

 

[DarthFed]

They can't all openly love Nads like your beloved Tignor.

 

[Moxie]

I appreciate the well reasoned post, @rahulpawar.

Again, I don't think anyone thought Fedal would do what they did this year. Even the vast majority of Nadal fans were hoping for maybe one more RG; and the vast majority of Roger fans were hoping he'd somehow get a lucky draw and win Wimbledon. The fact that they split all four Slams is a surprise to everyone.

I'm not going to massage over all of the bit above about you defending your theories in terms of predicting the future of Fedal, etc. They're all just guesses, and we're none of us that much better at predicting the future.

But to your last, bolded above, I think that's completely true. The biggest Roger and Rafa fans could barely have hoped for this year. To me, it shows what unique and great talents they are, and opportunistic in the best sense. They were both back to playing well, and when windows opened, they were the ones Rafa and Roger were the ones going through them to win 2 more Slams each, with Nadal also putting a gold stamp on his clay legacy. If nothing else, that was pretty hard to predict. I get Federberg's point that Roger was keeping the possibility close, with quality runs at Majors, but it had still started to look like a long-shot. They have added further proof to how great they are by their runs this year.

 

[the AntiPusher]

They can't all openly love Nads like your beloved Tignor.

We the so called Nads..we don't claim that fool Tignor..we put his ass on waivers years ago during the Nole reign of power.

 

[Moxie]

You guys are funny with your back-and-forth in the commentators wars. But none funnier than this, re: Rafa's winning % at Majors:

More like he has a lot to thank his buddy Roger for.

I would like to see you back that one up, @Front242.

 

[Front242]

You guys are funny with your back-and-forth in the commentators wars. But none funnier than this, re: Rafa's winning % at Majors:



I would like to see you back that one up, @Front242.

You sound like Obsi with the prove it lark. Simply because he (Roger) lost so many slam finals to Rafa obviously.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You sound like Obsi with the prove it lark. Simply because he (Roger) lost so many slam finals to Rafa obviously.

Then Rafa has himself to thank for beating Roger.

 

[isabelle]

More like he has a lot to thank his buddy Roger for.

Mr Vavrinec has to thanks his buddies Nole and Murray for his 2017's results in GS...

 

[Federberg]

FFS...Why don't they all thank each other then? It's funny how there's always some implied asterisk when Federer wins. Makes no sense to me. The winningest tennis player of all time is relying on the good fortune of injuries and poor form of other players????.... Or B...

For the record I don't see either Roger or Rafa getting lucky for any of their wins, they are ruthless greedy winners and if you serve it on a plate no one has been better at closing the deal than those two. For the claim of good fortune to be made about the two best players (possibly of all time) is one of the rankest, most ignorant opinions pushed from so called pundits and forum posters. It requires a special level of stupidity for such views to be genuinely held. Obviously some of the people who make those comments are merely speaking in terms of fan bias, and that's fine. I can filter for that. But anyone else making such statements is frankly idiotic, and exposes a serious lack of knowledge about winning in general and sports in particular.

Logic says that it should be the less accomplished players who are considered fortunate, but in this twisted world somehow it's not...

 

[DarthFed]

Mr Vavrinec has to thanks his buddies Nole and Murray for his 2017's results in GS...

Lol Murray. People against Roger have a weird way of propping Andy up way higher than he is either in that he'd be a serious threat vs a Roger in good form or that he represents this incredible competition for Nole and Rafa that is so much harder than the guys Fed faced.

Nole wasn't stopping Fed at Wimbledon this year anyways, even if he was in good form. Roger's return has killed him against Nole and Rafa over the years but this year through Wimbledon it was a big time weapon. Fed's serve this year was quietly the worst that I can remember it but the ROS and backhand more than made up for it. He needs to come back strong and the gramps will slap the youngsters around with his cane again.

 

[Jelenafan]

Nole wasn't stopping Fed at Wimbledon this year anyways, even if he was in good form. Roger's return has killed him against Nole and Rafa over the years but this year through Wimbledon it was a big time weapon. Fed's serve this year was quietly the worst that I can remember it but the ROS and backhand more than made up for it. He needs to come back strong and the gramps will slap the youngsters around with his cane again.

Djokovic leads their rivalry 23-22, granted it's just by a whisker. So I hardly give any of their hypothetical outcomes a gimmee for either player.

One of Novak's biggest attributes is his return of serve, so if Roger is serving less than stellar per your analysis, I just can't see how that makes it "automatic" that he would lose Wimbledon even in good form.

Granted, I'm not making a prediction on that outcome that never was, just opining on the parameters you set forth.

 

[shawnbm]

Still going over this stuff I see. It is going to be difficult for Rafael to pass Roger, but if it is not an insurmountable task. He has the tools and the drive.

 

[Federberg]

Djokovic leads their rivalry 23-22, granted it's just by a whisker. So I hardly give any of their hypothetical outcomes a gimmee for either player.

One of Novak's biggest attributes is his return of serve, so if Roger is serving less than stellar per your analysis, I just can't see how that makes it "automatic" that he would lose Wimbledon even in good form.

Granted, I'm not making a prediction on that outcome that never was, just opining on the parameters you set forth.

That's a fair point, but the other component of Roger's transformation this year is that his return of serve is a whole magnitude better. One of the things that has hurt Roger is that he's struggled (relatively speaking) to hold his serve against Novak and been ineffective at making a dent on Novak's serve. It would have been something to see how that dynamic would have played out this year. And I'm not even mentioning how Novak has tended to take advantage of Roger's tendency in the past to try to camp out in the Ad court against Novak. With his improved backhand this year that wouldn't have happened and Novak would have been forced to look for alternative solutions. On balance I think it's reasonable to say it would have been a whole lot tougher for Novak to create the old problems for Roger

 

[Carol]

I think Roger's serve this year is pretty good but I can't say the same about his legs after Wimbledon even that you can tell he is doing a lot of exercise to strengthen them, they look a lot more heavy than before

 

[DarthFed]

Djokovic leads their rivalry 23-22, granted it's just by a whisker. So I hardly give any of their hypothetical outcomes a gimmee for either player.

One of Novak's biggest attributes is his return of serve, so if Roger is serving less than stellar per your analysis, I just can't see how that makes it "automatic" that he would lose Wimbledon even in good form.

Granted, I'm not making a prediction on that outcome that never was, just opining on the parameters you set forth.

Yes that's all true but I think the dynamic at Wimbledon would've been a lot different given Roger's return. But if Nole showed up like in 2014 that'd have been very difficult for Roger or anyone, that was probably the best he's played in a big match outside of maybe AO. But I'm saying the "average" version of Nole on grass, which I think 2015 was, would not have been enough to beat Roger this year at Wimbledon IMO.

 

[Jelenafan]

Yes that's all true but I think the dynamic at Wimbledon would've been a lot different given Roger's return. But if Nole showed up like in 2014 that'd have been very difficult for Roger or anyone, that was probably the best he's played in a big match outside of maybe AO. But I'm saying the "average" version of Nole on grass, which I think 2015 was, would not have been enough to beat Roger this year at Wimbledon IMO.

OK, I hearya.

Just makes me hope everyone is back and playing on all cylinders for 2018. Can you imagine all the big guns just going for it one last time...

 

[Moxie]

You sound like Obsi with the prove it lark. Simply because he (Roger) lost so many slam finals to Rafa obviously.

Them's fightin' words! :lulz2: (Kidding.) I thought perhaps you had some kooky theory about the other 10, but that's really more Darth territory.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Darth, Front and the rest of the Fed's fans this was forwarded to my inbox(actually from one of Darth's admirers)

Here is some gospel for what is left of your tennis souls....

El Dude.. you may enjoy reading this while having your evening bottle of spirits


Very interesting analysis at The Economist.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/09/draws-tennis?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

———

THE RACE is on. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, the two men who dominated men’s tennis from 2005-10, have enjoyed a startling resurgence in 2017, splitting the year’s four grand-slam titles. Mr Federer picked up his wins at the Australian Open (where he defeated Mr Nadal in a five-set final) and Wimbledon, while his long-time rival paired his tenth French Open crown with this year’s US Open title. Mr Nadal cruised to the championship in New York, dropping only one set in his last four matches and polishing it off on September 10th with a routine win over South Africa’s Kevin Anderson, 6-3 6-3 6-4.

The latest trophy represents Mr Nadal’s 16th major title, second only to Mr Federer’s 19. Even as pundits have predicted for years that one or the other is finished as an elite player—especially Mr Federer, who turned 36 last month—there is no end in sight for this two-man race. The only other active player in range—Novak Djokovic, with 12—hasn’t claimed a victory since last year’s French Open, and is sitting out the second half of this season with an elbow injury. Andy Murray, the fourth member of the “Big Four” of men’s tennis, holds only three majors, and thanks to a hip injury, he too is missing much of the 2017 season.

....

Both Mr Federer and Mr Nadal have faced some easy draws and some hard ones—that’s the nature of a sport in which every tournament begins with an empty bracket and a lottery. But the lotteries—and the career trajectories of the strongest members of tennis’s supporting cast—have tended to benefit Mr Federer. The average grand-slam title run requires beating a set of opponents that the typical champion would defeat 23% of the time. Only eight of Mr Federer’s 19 major titles have come against competition more difficult than that. But 13 of Mr Nadal’s 16 championships have required him to confront harder-than-average obstacles. Suddenly, the difference between 19 and 16 isn’t as clear-cut as it initially seemed.

In fact, when we adjust those two numbers for difficulty, the King of Clay proves to be the king of tennis—period. On average, Mr Nadal’s titles are worth 1.18 majors apiece, while Mr Federer’s work out to 0.98 each. I’ll save you the multiplication: Mr Nadal comes out on top by the narrowest of margins, 18.8 to 18.7. The adjustment gives Mr Djokovic more credit as well, upping his total from 12 to 15.3 and swapping his fourth-place position on the traditional list with Pete Sampras’s third. It’s a promotion Mr Djokovic deserves, as all 12 of his major titles have required him to fight through tougher-than-average draws. Running the numbers also forces us to recognise just how hard Mr Wawrinka has needed to work to break the stranglehold his most fearsome peers have held at the grand slams. His three majors all rank in the top ten most difficult.

Even more than weeks atop the world rankings and Masters-level titles, difficulty-adjusted majors are unlikely to figure in the typical weekend argument about the greatest tennis player of all time. Yet for a single metric, it carries a heavy load, going to the heart of the case for Mr Nadal and cutting through much of the anecdotal carping that leads fans to discount one title or grant another extra credit. Each of the all-time greats has had their share of good and bad luck—little of it as good as Mr Nadal’s fortunes this past fortnight. As the sport’s greatest rivals continue their quest in 2018, it is important to remember that the Spaniard’s easy draw was an aberration, and that his career record in grand slams is every bit as good as Mr Federer’s.

 

[El Dude]

That's Jeff Sackman, who writes the Heavy Topspin blog and created the Tennis Abstract site.

Of course that's only one metric, and I wouldn't dub Rafa the GOAT just based upon it alone. In fact, there's no single metric or stat that adequately ranks a player's overall greatness - at least nothing yet. There have been some attempts, but they all seem to fall short in one way or another (baseball, which is far more advanced in terms of statistic analysis, has "WAR" or Wins Above Replacement, but that is also rather controversial and not accepted by everyone...even so, it is a better catchall stat than any in tennis).

 

[Moxie]

I don't think anyone is trying to crown Nadal the GOAT, but I do think there's loads of argument for both. Roddick laughed over the weekend about it and said: It's funny to try to guess the end of the book before it's been written. Good point, I thought.