Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

So number of Major wins is the only criterion? Somehow I don't think that would be the end of the discussion.

It's not, and I didn't say it was. You didn't give a random hypothetical scenario in which Player A has 21 slams and Player B has 19 and left it at that. You gave a specific one, in which Rafael Nadal has 1 or 2 majors more than Roger Federer. So knowing what we know about both men's careers, I think Nadal having one and especially, two more majors than Federer (which will never happen) would make him a clear GOAT, because you'd be talking about someone who has 1) more majors, 2) more masters 1000 events, 3) dominated the h2h. Sure, there would be other factors such as Roger's sustained dominance (consecutive weeks at #1) and whatnot, but none of them would seriously put a dent in Nadal's case.

So no, major wins isn't the only criterion. It's the body of work of an entire career that counts.

 

[DarthFed]

I hope you aren't arguing that MS wins are more important than YEC's and time spent at #1. I think of all the candidates for second most important criteria in greatness argument that it is clearly being #1 that wins out. I bet Rafa would give up the H2H advantage and MS titles in a second if it meant he was #1 an extra 150 weeks.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I hope you aren't arguing that MS wins are more important than YEC's and time spent at #1. I think of all the candidates for second most important criteria in greatness argument that it is clearly being #1 that wins out. I bet Rafa would give up the H2H advantage and MS titles in a second if it meant he was #1 an extra 150 weeks.

No. I'm saying the combination of winning 2 more majors, more masters 1000 events, and a historical head to head domination would make a much stronger case than winning fewer majors but spending more time at number 1 and winning more YEC's. It's not about each individual criterion on its own, but a general outlook of the body of work. Winning 2 more majors, in the same era no less, should be enough on its own anyway, but when combined with the other factors, they make for a strong case that would trounce another case built on consecutive weeks as #1 and winning multiple YEC's.

And I don't think in general, the H2H is more important than say YEC's. Of course it's not. But in this particular instance, if somehow Nadal ends up with two more majors, the H2H becomes huge. Because you're talking about him amassing more majors than Roger in Roger's era and dominating him historically, almost to an embarrassing extent. People will look at that and think it's undeniable who the better player is, whether fair or not.

This is all moot anyway as Nadal is ending up with two more majors than Roger.

 

[Ricardo]

No. I'm saying the combination of winning 2 more majors, more masters 1000 events, and a historical head to head domination would make a much stronger case than winning fewer majors but spending more time at number 1 and winning more YEC's. It's not about each individual criterion on its own, but a general outlook of the body of work. Winning 2 more majors, in the same era no less, should be enough on its own anyway, but when combined with the other factors, they make for a strong case that would trounce another case built on consecutive weeks as #1 and winning multiple YEC's.

And I don't think in general, the H2H is more important than say YEC's. Of course it's not. But in this particular instance, if somehow Nadal ends up with two more majors, the H2H becomes huge. Because you're talking about him amassing more majors than Roger in Roger's era and dominating him historically, almost to an embarrassing extent. People will look at that and think it's undeniable who the better player is, whether fair or not.

This is all moot anyway as Nadal is ending up with two more majors than Roger.

H-H can be interpreted quite differently depending on one's perspective. Fed has slight edge on grass and hard court but Nadal owns him on clay so don't think one can say conclusively that Nadal trumps Fed as being the better player ...... the only fair way (for arguments sake if possible) is to play equal number of times on each surface. As it stands Nadal is better of the two but only marginally even just looking at H-H and he really needs A LOT more slams to be considered being overall better.

 

[brokenshoelace]

H-H can be interpreted quite differently depending on one's perspective. Fed has slight edge on grass and hard court but Nadal owns him on clay so don't think one can say conclusively that Nadal trumps Fed as being the better player ...... the only fair way (for arguments sake if possible) is to play equal number of times on each surface. As it stands Nadal is better of the two but only marginally even just looking at H-H and he really needs A LOT more slams to be considered being overall better.

Well, in the hypothetical scenario Moxie presented, Nadal would end up with 1 or 2 more majors than Federer. If he ends up with two more, then this means he's won at least 5 more slams for the rest of his career (or more if Fed wins some as well), which counts for a "A LOT more slams." I'm not seriously arguing that Nadal has a claim for being the better player now as he clearly doesn't.

 

[shawnbm]

They are still playing and winning majors, but Nadal likely is in better position to win more. He still is the best bet on clay in Paris until Novak gets back to full strength (I question if Roger ever plays there again). I like to think Roger wins another to make it 20, but I did not like the way he was playing in Montreal and New York. He just looked flat to me. He has to play better than that to continue winning majors.

 

[Ricardo]

They are still playing and winning majors, but Nadal likely is in better position to win more. He still is the best bet on clay in Paris until Novak gets back to full strength (I question if Roger ever plays there again). I like to think Roger wins another to make it 20, but I did not like the way he was playing in Montreal and New York. He just looked flat to me. He has to play better than that to continue winning majors.

hmmm it would be a miracle if he could maintain his Melbourne form. At his age he would at most be looking at peaking one more time and hope the timing is right. His Montreal/NY form should be his norm these days if one is being realistic, there is a reason most players are not on tour at 36. To be a contender for top ranking at such age is already not much short of magic.

at NY he did look like an old car that desperately needed to get a major service. He was worn down, lacked energy, and played bad.....and it happened when USO just had the weakest draw ever.

 

[Federberg]

hmmm it would be a miracle if he could maintain his Melbourne form. At his age he would at most be looking at peaking one more time and hope the timing is right. His Montreal/NY form should be his norm these days if one is being realistic, there is a reason most players are not on tour at 36. To be a contender for top ranking at such age is already not much short of magic.

at NY he did look like an old car that desperately needed to get a major service. He was worn down, lacked energy, and played bad.....and it happened when USO just had the weakest draw ever.

Exactly. So it amazes me that there were people arguing he should play both Montreal and Cincy. It's like they forgot the dude is a geriatric

 

[Carol]

Last year we haven´t had any idea who would win the GS this year and look who got it so I don´t think we could know who will make it next year. But I have something very clear, with 31 years old and being healthy is easier to get more achievements than with 36

 

[GameSetAndMath]

They are still playing and winning majors, but Nadal likely is in better position to win more. He still is the best bet on clay in Paris until Novak gets back to full strength (I question if Roger ever plays there again). I like to think Roger wins another to make it 20, but I did not like the way he was playing in Montreal and New York. He just looked flat to me. He has to play better than that to continue winning majors.

Yes, but that is not due to form issue. It is due to health (back problems) issue. If he is injury free, Roger rarely suffers from form
problems.

Having said that, the only way Roger can be performing well in big events from now is to make sure that he is healthy and picking and choosing his events (which he did wisely this year until he stepped foot in Montreal) instead of trying to play too many in short time.

 

[mrzz]

Even if I know a handful of posters here try to look at the bigger picture, I can't help but feel that in general we always use the immediate past to forecast the long term future. Right now it seems everyone is betting on a 22x21 (or 21x22) score in a few years, when exactly one year ago most would think that 17x14 was set in stone.

On one hand, I agree that these two keep defying ordinary logic, but on the other, in the last 5 years Nadal has won five majors and Federer two. If we extend it to six years, the score is 6 to 3. But six years ago Nadal was 25 and Federer 30. In six years they will 37 and 42.... again, I am one who firmly subscribes to "peak shift theory" (to use a term @El Dude coined), even if not exactly for the technology arguments most believe are the main factor. Even so, i still think it is optimistic to believe these two will keep their majors per year ratio for, what, three years? This would give Nadal three more and Federer 1.5 more.

So, I won't make any prediction out of this, just stress that Nadal has one helluva task in front of him. If he cannot win both AO and RG next year people will probably jump ship right away and say he's done, same for Federer if he can't at least reach the final on Wimbledon. With so many players coming back at AO, yet low seeded, and with the major race still alive (even for Djokovic, he desperately needs #13 to still have a shot), it will be one of the most interesting majors in years.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RF has said recently that he expects 2018 to be dominated by Big Four again. RF says youngsters are not yet ready, not to mention the lost generation who were never ready.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Has he? Never seen Roger bump into someone on purpose 'cos they were beating him or shout banana at young ball kids like an ignorant thug. Never seen him pick his ass either for that matter. That Nadal fella sure raised the bar on national tv. Bernades was banned for quite a while from his matches but, yes, he's back umpiring his matches now.

Rafa has never said to an umpire during an implosion to Delpo aka JMDP..that he doesn't give a "Sh#T to a chair umpire

 

[Federberg]

Rafa has never said to an umpire during an implosion to Delpo aka JMDP..that he doesn't give a "Sh#T to a chair umpire

Not sure that was such a bad thing to do when Roger lost it with that umpire. He was giving Delpo way too long to make those calls. Then the umpire raises his hand to Roger? Hell yeah! I would have told the umpire to do one too.

As for Rafa, I'm pretty sure I've seen him lose it with umpires before. Not sure what he said, not speaking Spanish, but let's not try to pretend sainthood if that's the game plan. I've often seen Rafa mouth swear words, so a saint he's not. Neither is Roger, but quite frankly it's entertaining

 

[Front242]

Rafa has never said to an umpire during an implosion to Delpo aka JMDP..that he doesn't give a "Sh#T to a chair umpire

Nah, he just has a hissy fit and decides to bend the rules with the authorities to have one of the few guys actually with the balls to enforce the rules banned from umpiring his matches. I mean, the cheek of the umpire to have the sheer audacity to actually enforce the rules.

 

[Carol]

I understand perfectly well Spanish and Nadal has never said to bad words the Umpires, he is more smart than that

 

[Front242]

I understand perfectly well Spanish and Nadal has never said to bad words the Umpires, he is more smart than that

Yeah, we've already concluded that. Any problems with having to adhere to the rules and he just has the guy banned from umpiring him lol. Smart alright. Despicable that they allow it though. Wouldn't happen in any other sport.

 

[Moxie]

Even if I know a handful of posters here try to look at the bigger picture, I can't help but feel that in general we always use the immediate past to forecast the long term future. Right now it seems everyone is betting on a 22x21 (or 21x22) score in a few years, when exactly one year ago most would think that 17x14 was set in stone.

On one hand, I agree that these two keep defying ordinary logic, but on the other, in the last 5 years Nadal has won five majors and Federer two. If we extend it to six years, the score is 6 to 3. But six years ago Nadal was 25 and Federer 30. In six years they will 37 and 42.... again, I am one who firmly subscribes to "peak shift theory" (to use a term @El Dude coined), even if not exactly for the technology arguments most believe are the main factor. Even so, i still think it is optimistic to believe these two will keep their majors per year ratio for, what, three years? This would give Nadal three more and Federer 1.5 more.

So, I won't make any prediction out of this, just stress that Nadal has one helluva task in front of him. If he cannot win both AO and RG next year people will probably jump ship right away and say he's done, same for Federer if he can't at least reach the final on Wimbledon. With so many players coming back at AO, yet low seeded, and with the major race still alive (even for Djokovic, he desperately needs #13 to still have a shot), it will be one of the most interesting majors in years.

The above bolded is a very wise point. Such as: Djokovic was going to hoover up everything for the foreseeable future...until he didn't. Now Fedal have broken the curse of post-30...until it catches up to them again. For my part, I was just posing a hypothetical as to Rafa going 1 or 2 beyond Roger, in keeping with the original topic. I don't believe that would end the GOAT conversation between the two of them, and...well, as you see. But it's all hypothetical. You rightly point out that we thought they were pretty much ready to be finished at 17-14. Now, they've both added to the haul, but kept the same distance. Fedal Wars reignited, but there's no telling where they go from here.

 

[Moxie]

H-H can be interpreted quite differently depending on one's perspective. Fed has slight edge on grass and hard court but Nadal owns him on clay so don't think one can say conclusively that Nadal trumps Fed as being the better player ...... the only fair way (for arguments sake if possible) is to play equal number of times on each surface. As it stands Nadal is better of the two but only marginally even just looking at H-H and he really needs A LOT more slams to be considered being overall better.

There is a lot to be parsed out in the H2H, but you've pretty much found the only one that is generous to Fed, and only just. On Hards, Roger has usually been playing catch-up, too, and only the run this year made the difference. I don't know how you can even it out by having them play the same number of matches on each surface. They have played a lot on HC. But they H2H favors Nadal in finals of Majors (6-3,) and finals overall (14-9.) You can interpret it differently, if you like, but it takes some effort to make it come out well for Roger.

 

[Ricardo]

There is a lot to be parsed out in the H2H, but you've pretty much found the only one that is generous to Fed, and only just. On Hards, Roger has usually been playing catch-up, too, and only the run this year made the difference. I don't know how you can even it out by having them play the same number of matches on each surface. They have played a lot on HC. But they H2H favors Nadal in finals of Majors (6-3,) and finals overall (14-9.) You can interpret it differently, if you like, but it takes some effort to make it come out well for Roger.

by saying this you have agreed to the argument that clay has skewed it all, because Fed is very good on it. If he sucked on clay like Sampras, he would have winning H2H in finals majors and finals overall, because as we know it Sampras never made it to a RG final while Rafa beat Fed 4 times there, not to mention a whole bunch of clay Masters1000 finals.

A Federer with bad clay ability would have 18 GS, and a winning H-H over Nadal......whether it's overall, in Major or Masters finals. It doesn't take any effort to have it look good for Roger, all it takes is for him to be crap on clay......which i am sure he would be capable of, if he really wanted to look good H-H vs Nadal.....sorry you can't win this argument.