Will Nadal pass Federer?

[britbox]

I said the day Fed won the AO this year, I thought it was the last one. He left a lot out there on Flinders Park, narrowly averting a semi-meltdown. Hope to be proved wrong but I think he's 20 and out. No way would I have predicted a loss to Kevin Anderson from two sets up though.

Still don't think Nadal will overtake him anyway.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Stan is probably done winning slams. But, can sure come up with an occasional upset. With Andy, he is in the same territory as Novak was two weeks ago. Unless and until he proves otherwise, we should assume that he cannot win slams anymore. I am not saying he will never win. But, he needs to prove himself coming back from such a serious hip surgery.

Starting with 2003 Wimbledon, there have been 61 GSs so far. Of them 50 have been won by Fedalovic. The remaining 11 shared as follows: Stan and Murray 3 each, Roddick, Safin, Gaudio, JMDP and Cilic 1 each. Assuming Stan and Murray are done, we are left with 5 other slam winners, of which three have retired. Considering JMDP has backhand issues, we have only Cilic as a contender who has proven himself by winning a major. The lost generation sucks. The Gen X need to mature little bit and will take about three years at least. So, of the next 12 slams, it is reasonable to assume that 10 will be won by Fedalovic and a couple of odd ones by some others.

The only interesting thing is to figure out how these 10 will be shared by the Truly Talented Three.

My point was more along the lines of Andy and Stan providing the upset. Not that they aren’t capable of a slam run, but they can prove a nasty run in on the way to a slam run for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. There is also Delpo and Cilic who have proven to be a nasty out for any of the three as well.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think we should also consider the possibility that if Nadal does have a shot a passing Federer will he get nerves and fumble like Serena did a few times approaching the numbers.

 

[monfed]

At this point the first and only priority is that dull doesn't win anymore slams. Beyond that is pure gravy.

 

[Horsa]

Just to repeat that I am sure neither Nadal or Federer never win a major again (and I said that before Wimbledon). I am repeating this now just to be unpleasant.

You may be right about that. We don't know. We'll have to wait & see. I've known you long enough to know you're not Mr. Nasty though you like to act like it sometimes. You're Mr. Zz. Lol.

 

[DarthFed]

I said the day Fed won the AO this year, I thought it was the last one. He left a lot out there on Flinders Park, narrowly averting a semi-meltdown. Hope to be proved wrong but I think he's 20 and out. No way would I have predicted a loss to Kevin Anderson from two sets up though.

Still don't think Nadal will overtake him anyway.

We shall see my friend. We've both counted him out before and he always seems to prove us wrong. I'm at the point I won't totally doubt his major prospects until he's either crippled by injury or retired.

 

[monfed]

I said the day Fed won the AO this year, I thought it was the last one. He left a lot out there on Flinders Park, narrowly averting a semi-meltdown. Hope to be proved wrong but I think he's 20 and out. No way would I have predicted a loss to Kevin Anderson from two sets up though.

Still don't think Nadal will overtake him anyway.

Agree with everything except the last part because of RG unfortunately.

 

[monfed]

We have to look at the bigger picture and that is the value of the slam count. What do I mean by that? Well look, are you really gonna tell me that not one , not two, but three players of the SAME era are that much better than guys of the past eras like Sampras, Borg etc that they're shattering a slam count of 14 like it's nothing? I mean if faker didn't have his zen, he would've already been at 15-16 slams by now. That's how ridiculous winning slams in this era has become. It has almost cheapened the value of winning slams and thereby the slam count. It's slam inflation at it's worst.

People think oh wow three guys have won a combined total of 50 slams, they must be so much better than the players of the past. Why should Sampras or Borg or whoever actually believe that these three are that much better than them when those guys owned their respective eras too? If you account for surface polarization(towards the slower end of the spectrum thereby making the domination even longer as the margins are increased) and equipment would these players win these many slams in the past eras? I don't think so.

The second aspect of this is that Federer leads Nadal by only 3 slams. What is the value of 3 slams really in the current era? It's basically 2 years of winning slams for the top guys give or take, isn't it? So is it really THAT big of a gap when dull has already won 17 freaking slams?
And let's say if dull wins another slam or two then is saying 20>18 or 20>19 even relevant? It's almost silly when the base numbers are so huge. Anything beyond say 14-15 slams is a tier on it's own so 20>18 or 20>19 doesn't accurately reflect the difference in quality between the two players.

So my point is that Federer needs to have ATLEAST 2 slam(and that is really pushing it) gap but ideally 4 to 5 slams to conclusively say he's better than Nadal statistically speaking. So the slam chase is already over if Nadal wins one more unless Fed keeps adding to his tally which is unlikely at his age.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

We have to look at the bigger picture and that is the value of the slam count. What do I mean by that? Well look, are you really gonna tell me that not one , not two, but three players of the SAME era are that much better than guys of the past eras like Sampras, Borg etc that they're shattering a slam count of 14 like it's nothing? I mean if faker didn't have his zen, he would've already been at 15-16 slams by now. That's how ridiculous winning slams in this era has become. It has almost cheapened the value of winning slams and thereby the slam count. It's slam inflation at it's worst.

People think oh wow three guys have won a combined total of 50 slams, they must be so much better than the players of the past. Why should Sampras or Borg or whoever actually believe that these three are that much better than them when those guys owned their respective eras too? If you account for surface polarization(towards the slower end of the spectrum thereby making the domination even longer as the margins are increased) and equipment would these players win these many slams in the past eras? I don't think so.

The second aspect of this is that Federer leads Nadal by only 3 slams. What is the value of 3 slams really in the current era? It's basically 2 years of winning slams for the top guys give or take, isn't it? So is it really THAT big of a gap when dull has already won 17 freaking slams?
And let's say if dull wins another slam or two then is saying 20>18 or 20>19 even relevant? It's almost silly when the base numbers are so huge. Anything beyond say 14-15 slams is a tier on it's own so 20>18 or 20>19 doesn't accurately reflect the difference in quality between the two players.

So my point is that Federer needs to have ATLEAST 2 slam(and that is really pushing it) gap but ideally 4 to 5 slams to conclusively say he's better than Nadal statistically speaking. So the slam chase is already over if Nadal wins one more unless Fed keeps adding to his tally which is unlikely at his age.

Just one slam would do. The reason is that the argument for GOAT only partially depends on slam count. Fed is the leader in no of weeks at #1, matches won (except for Connors), titles won (except for Connors), WTFs won etc. So, there is no need for large difference in number of slams won. But, he needs to be ahead by at least 1 when everything is said and done.

 

[Moxie]

Just one slam would do. The reason is that the argument for GOAT only partially depends on slam count. Fed is the leader in no of weeks at #1, matches won (except for Connors), titles won (except for Connors), WTFs won etc. So, there is no need for large difference in number of slams won. But, he needs to be ahead by at least 1 when everything is said and done.

Exactly. No matter how the Slam count works out, and no matter how many people have said that they'd make that the definer, Roger has other resume buffers to count on, so relax.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Three years for Next Gen to become relevant is a very long time. It is possible though. Even with that I don't really see Fedalovic winning 10 of the next 12.

Even if you give only two years for Next Gen to mature and allow for an odd exceptions, we are talking about 6 slams for Fedalovic. Depending upon, how it gets distributed, either Rafa can overtake Fed or Novak can overtake Rafa.

1. Fed 0, Rafa 4, Nole 2: Rafa overtakes Fed.

2. Fed 0, Rafa 0, Nole 6: Nole overtakes Rafa

3. Fed 0, Rafa 1, Nole 5: Nole ties Rafa.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Just to repeat that I am sure neither Nadal or Federer never win a major again (and I said that before Wimbledon). I am repeating this now just to be unpleasant.

I will surely be happy if your predictions comes true.

 

[Moxie]

Even if you give only two years for Next Gen to mature and allow for an odd exceptions, we are talking about 6 slams for Fedalovic. Depending upon, how it gets distributed, either Rafa can overtake Fed or Novak can overtake Rafa.

1. Fed 0, Rafa 4, Nole 2: Rafa overtakes Fed.

2. Fed 0, Rafa 0, Nole 6: Nole overtakes Rafa

3. Fed 0, Rafa 1, Nole 5: Nole ties Rafa.

Not sure why this is necessary, but you do rather show how much Novak has his work cut out for him. Rafa, at just 32, has the better chance of deleting the options of either.

 

[DarthFed]

Exactly. No matter how the Slam count works out, and no matter how many people have said that they'd make that the definer, Roger has other resume buffers to count on, so relax.

Slams will define them. Roger won't have a false sense of security soon. In fact this recent near catastrophe should show him how important it is to add more titles and get back to the proper mindset. Because X slams is nothing if Nadal hits X or more.

 

[Vince Evert]

Roger needs 10 Wimbledon's and he shouldn't retire without it. Nads has overachieved enough.

Federer winning 10 Wimbly's would be rather nice. Bias aside, i think it will be a sad day fr the sport when he does retire and there are no other players who can play the game/ go about their tennis the way Roger plays who are able to sustain a high level and challenge the Nadal's, Djokovic's and - when he comes back, Murray. i thought Grigor Dimitrov had the makings to be the next great player but sadly he's gone backwards.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer winning 10 Wimbly's would be rather nice. Bias aside, i think it will be a sad day fr the sport when he does retire and there are no other players who can play the game/ go about their tennis the way Roger plays who are able to sustain a high level and challenge the Nadal's, Djokovic's and - when he comes back, Murray. i thought Grigor Dimitrov had the makings to be the next great player but sadly he's gone backwards.

Well he isn't winning 10 Wimbledon's now. He blew it...

 

[Vince Evert]

Nine then. Federer's Nine Symphonies has a nice ring to it. LOL Let's hope for the '19 championships the grasscourts will be speeded up a touch. It's no coincidence there has been 4 or 5 marathon matches clocking 4 hours and over and that is what you'd expect for Roland Garros or Australian Open, not lawn tennis.

 

[monfed]

Nine then. Federer's Nine Symphonies has a nice ring to it. LOL Let's hope for the '19 championships the grasscourts will be speeded up a touch. It's no coincidence there has been 4 or 5 marathon matches clocking 4 hours and over and that is what you'd expect for Roland Garros or Australian Open, not lawn tennis.

LOL he ain't winning nine either. Fed is done on grass. It's too quick for him against the big hitters and too slow for him against the grindbots like faker. Fed's ground game is atrocious on grass, has been for a while now.

The only way Fed wins Wimbledon again is if he gets a peachy draw and avoids the big hitters like Cilic, Kyrgios etc specially Cilic and avoids fakervic. Too much to avoid so not happening.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Situation is dire.

Fed looks done.

Rafa looks to be sure of winning at least two RGs and at least one other slam (probably even this USO).

 

[rafanoy1992]

Situation is dire.

Fed looks done.

Rafa looks to be sure of winning at least two RGs and at least one other slam (probably even this USO).

There are no guarantees in sports, GSM. They still have to play the matches and last time I check Federer is still at 20 slams and Nadal is still at 17 slams...