Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

Time to bump this thread up as well.

If you have not seen this thread before, please first read this interesting analysis which was published exactly one year ago, on Rafa's birthday last year. So, it will count one less slam for Rafa and it is not a mistake. But, the article is still relevant though. The basic methodology uses the distribution of ages of slam winners (Dudesque) while taking into account that Roger and Rafa are not ordinary players (uses a multiplying factor for their greatness).

I think Roger will probably never win AO or RG again. But, he still has good chances at Wimbleon and some chances at USO. After all, he is still the #2 player and he likes fast courts.

I am not writing off Rafa. I strongly believe that he will win at least one more slam (if not more) before retiring. However, I don't see much chances of Rafa winning Wimbledon or USO from now on. His chances are good primarily at RG and secondarily at AO, it being a slow hard court. But, in both of those he may need to solve the Novak problem, assuming Novak remains in good form for say two more years, which is reasonable to make. After two more years, Rafa will be 31 and difficult to see him even in contention for the title at majors. My guess is Rafa has one more RG in him definitely and probably nothing more than that (except for perhaps some finals at RG and AO). Even though AO surface is slow, for some reason or other, it has been an unlucky Slam for him over the years and I don't expect him to win there either.

So, what you think of the question in the title of the thread, in view of the analysis based on the article linked and as one year has elapsed since that article was published.

Nadal has a better chance at winning the US Open than the Australian Open, actually. There's a reason he's done better there.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

According to his own admission, Rafa likes natural surfaces (clay and grass) better than hard.
After all he has won Wimby twice and been to finals few more times there. Of late, he had been beatern there early by unknown guys. This is partly because he gets kicked out before he finds his feet. He is generally regarded as dangerous if he reaches second week at Wimby.

Starting from this year, with three weeks of Grass warm-up season, Rafa may find enough time to get his grass feet. This year in fact, he is actually playing next week in Stuttgart and the following week in Queens. So, he will have good amount of practice even if he gets out early in one of these two tourneys. So, Rafa's grass fortunes may revive (not this year though, but in the long run).

It would be interesting to see as to how this 3 week Grass season helps Rafa.

 

[Federberg]

If Rafa's movement isn't quite what it used to be even on his best surface, then I'm at a loss to see how things aren't going to get worse for him on grass. My take on Rafa's performances at the US Open vs AO... I think that his two biggest rivals (Murray and Djokovic) are much stronger on the slow hard court in Australia. To me, it's not that Rafa is better in New York, it's just that his opposition is not quite as good

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Rafa's movement isn't quite what it used to be even on his best surface, then I'm at a loss to see how things aren't going to get worse for him on grass. My take on Rafa's performances at the US Open vs AO... I think that his two biggest rivals (Murray and Djokovic) are much stronger on the slow hard court in Australia. To me, it's not that Rafa is better in New York, it's just that his opposition is not quite as good

Disagree there. Firstly, the two aren't mutually exclusive. His rivals can be better at the AO AND he can be better at the US Open. Regardless, the argument is still odd as Murray's game is more suited for the US Open surface than Australia (surprise, he's actually won it). Murray's counter-punching and lack of ability to consistently generate his own pace has really hurt him at the AO. Whereas in New York, he can do what Hewitt used to do on that surface in his prime, use his opponent's power against him, return aggressively, break the rhythm, etc... Medium hards like the AO don't suit Murray's game that much. Of course he'll do well, as he's a great hard court player in general, but there's a reason he's done better on faster hards. Novak is obviously better in Australia so no arguments there.

As far as Nadal goes, I don't get the argument at all. For starters, all you have to do is remember that the best hard court tennis he's ever played came at the US Open in 2010, followed by the US Open in 2013. Both levels were significantly higher than his level at the 2009 AO, where he had to produce the greatest defensive performance of his life to beat Verdasco and he had to merely show up to beat Federer.

The US Open surface allows Nadal more options against guys like Murray and Djokovic since he can get more cheap points on serve, every point doesn't have to be a 20 + stroke rally, and he can actually play first strike tennis more effectively. His cross court backhand isn't the occasional liability it can be in Australia, and his ability to flatten it out works well on that surface since the ball skids off a little quicker. The other issue is something you brought up yourself: movement. His aggression in the second half of his career compensates for whatever movement loss he's had, which works well at the US Open, whereas in Australia, he still needs a level of defensive ability that he no longer possesses on a consistent basis.

There's been some really odd revisionist history takes recently. Nadal isn't the player he once was. Not even close. But let's not make everything about his rivals. Last I checked he's still significantly more accomplished than both, and didn't have to rely on them being "less good" anywhere. Him no longer being the King of Clay (or the king of anything) doesn't magically change history, or how good he was.

 

[Front242]

Luckily for him then that Roger was indeed "less good" in Wimbledon 2008 and then the AO 2009 was just compounded by that loss. If Roger wasn't "less good" those matches would've been far tougher and you know it.

 

[Federberg]

^We have different opinions. Yes the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but i see it differently. And I would definitely disagree with the idea that Murray is better at the US Open than in Australia. Yes he's won there, largely because he handled the wind better than Novak in the first few sets, in my view. But he's had more consistent success at the AO, but unfortunately he has been unlucky enough to be stopped by Novak and Roger quite a few times. I don't see either myself or anyone else trying to alter history, we have all been fairly consistent so far as I can see. We just don't agree with you

 

[Front242]

Yup the wind was the clincher against both Berdych whose serve and ground strokes were completely neutralized and Novak who really doesn't handle windy conditions as well as the other "big four" members although he's getting better these days. Back then though, he didn't.

 

[DarthFed]

Hate to break it to disappointed Rafa fans but Roger ain't staying stuck at 17. I think the next 12 months are telling for Rafa, if he doesn't win at least 1 (including RG next year) it's probably over.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Luckily for him then that Roger was indeed "less good" in Wimbledon 2008 and then the AO 2009 was just compounded by that loss. If Roger wasn't "less good" those matches would've been far tougher and you know it.

Yes. When did I ever dispute that?

Luckily for Roger, that Nadal was "not quite as good yet" at the 2007 Wimbledon final, and hurt his knee when he had the momentum, and choked away break points in the fifth. We can play that game all day. We all know Rafa wasn't quite in his prime when Roger was and vice versa.

Murray and Djokovic are a different issue.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^We have different opinions. Yes the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but i see it differently. And I would definitely disagree with the idea that Murray is better at the US Open than in Australia. Yes he's won there, largely because he handled the wind better than Novak in the first few sets, in my view. But he's had more consistent success at the AO, but unfortunately he has been unlucky enough to be stopped by Novak and Roger quite a few times. I don't see either myself or anyone else trying to alter history, we have all been fairly consistent so far as I can see. We just don't agree with you

Notice how there isn't a single tennis argument in the post above (ie what makes Murray better in Australia than New York). I'm not talking about a single match in which he handled the wind (although that's another reason why he's better in NY: The conditions. The super hot conditions of Melbourne don't suit his game. You're basically proving my point further). I'm talking about his game in general.

And yes, you have been consistent... at consistently trying to downplay anything related to Nadal by talking about the competition (the irony), the surfaces, or what have you. I mean just in the other thread, you laughed at the notion that the greatest clay courter ever, in his greatest ever form, would have beaten Djokovic. Yes, THAT is a laughable notion.

Consistent indeed.

 

[britbox]

I don't think Nadal will pass Federer but I wouldn't write him off adding to his major tally. I'd actually give him a better chance of winning an USO than Roger.

Fed has a couple of Wimbledon campaigns where he has a punt at a major. I think the boat has sailed on the others.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hate to break it to disappointed Rafa fans but Roger ain't staying stuck at 17. I think the next 12 months are telling for Rafa, if he doesn't win at least 1 (including RG next year) it's probably over.

It was over when Nadal didn't beat Wawrinka in Australia last year.

 

[Front242]

Luckily for him then that Roger was indeed "less good" in Wimbledon 2008 and then the AO 2009 was just compounded by that loss. If Roger wasn't "less good" those matches would've been far tougher and you know it.

Yes. When did I ever dispute that?

Luckily for Roger, that Nadal was "not quite as good yet" at the 2007 Wimbledon final, and hurt his knee when he had the momentum, and choked away break points in the fifth. We can play that game all day. We all know Rafa wasn't quite in his prime when Roger was and vice versa.

Murray and Djokovic are a different issue.

You said it below that Nadal never had to rely on his opponents being "less good" but in your reply here you say when did you ever dispute it. :cover Roger was flat out poor in the first 2 sets of Wimbledon 2008 so I'm pretty sure that means "less good".

There's been some really odd revisionist history takes recently. Nadal isn't the player he once was. Not even close. But let's not make everything about his rivals. Last I checked he's still significantly more accomplished than both, and didn't have to rely on them being "less good" anywhere.

 

[Front242]

^ Nadal has benefitted greatly from Roger being "less good" since 2008.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Luckily for him then that Roger was indeed "less good" in Wimbledon 2008 and then the AO 2009 was just compounded by that loss. If Roger wasn't "less good" those matches would've been far tougher and you know it.

Yes. When did I ever dispute that?

Luckily for Roger, that Nadal was "not quite as good yet" at the 2007 Wimbledon final, and hurt his knee when he had the momentum, and choked away break points in the fifth. We can play that game all day. We all know Rafa wasn't quite in his prime when Roger was and vice versa.

Murray and Djokovic are a different issue.

You said it below that Nadal never had to rely on his opponents being "less good" but in your reply here you say when did you ever dispute it. :cover Roger was flat out poor in the first 2 sets of Wimbledon 2008 so I'm pretty sure that means "less good".

There's been some really odd revisionist history takes recently. Nadal isn't the player he once was. Not even close. But let's not make everything about his rivals. Last I checked he's still significantly more accomplished than both, and didn't have to rely on them being "less good" anywhere.

Oh, sorry, my bad. I guess Nadal has beaten Roger so many times I lost track of when Roger became "less good" since for the most part, it never made much of a difference.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Nadal has benefitted greatly from Roger being "less good" since 2008.

Not nearly as much as Roger benefitted from Rafa being "less active" for so many stretches of his career. Let's not forget that the Sampras record could have remained a pipe dream had it not been for that.

Please, let's not play that game.

 

[Front242]

^ Nadal has benefitted greatly from Roger being "less good" since 2008.

Not nearly as much as Roger benefitted from Rafa being "less active" for so many stretches of his career. Let's not forget that the Sampras record could have remained a pipe dream had it not been for that.

Please, let's not play that game.

Well you see I didn't personally see a whole lot wrong with him when he lost to Soderling in '09 so Wimbledon 2009 being missed and subsequently won by Roger was his own choice. Did he really look so crippled to you that he couldn't play there? To most he didn't. And Roger lost the '09 USO anyway so he didn't benefit that much there in all fairness. Given Rafa's up and down performances at Wimbledon who's to say he wouldn't have lost to some donkey in the second round? And he wasn't good enough at the USO back then to win it anyway hence why they never met there.

 

[Front242]

It's all too easy for Nadal fans to assume Roger "benefitted" from Nadal not being in a slam he won but that just shows the pompous nature to assume if Nadal was playing he would've either won or beaten Roger. Who's to say they'd have even ended up playing each other? It's utterly pointless fanboyism drivel.

 

[Federberg]

^We have different opinions. Yes the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but i see it differently. And I would definitely disagree with the idea that Murray is better at the US Open than in Australia. Yes he's won there, largely because he handled the wind better than Novak in the first few sets, in my view. But he's had more consistent success at the AO, but unfortunately he has been unlucky enough to be stopped by Novak and Roger quite a few times. I don't see either myself or anyone else trying to alter history, we have all been fairly consistent so far as I can see. We just don't agree with you

Notice how there isn't a single tennis argument in the post above (ie what makes Murray better in Australia than New York). I'm not talking about a single match in which he handled the wind (although that's another reason why he's better in NY: The conditions. The super hot conditions of Melbourne don't suit his game. You're basically proving my point further). I'm talking about his game in general.

And yes, you have been consistent... at consistently trying to downplay anything related to Nadal by talking about the competition (the irony), the surfaces, or what have you. I mean just in the other thread, you laughed at the notion that the greatest clay courter ever, in his greatest ever form, would have beaten Djokovic. Yes, THAT is a laughable notion.

Consistent indeed.

Why would I need a tennis argument when I can let the facts speak for themselves? Murray has been in 4 finals at the AO, but only 2 at the US Open. That constitutes greater expertise at the AO in my view. If you disagree that's your opinion. Do you realise how much of a joke you make yourself appear to be when you feel the need to post such a trivial difference of opinion in such a snarky manner? :snicker Jeepers. Imagine if it was an important issue :nono

 

[Kieran]

Why would I need a tennis argument when I can let the facts speak for themselves? Murray has been in 4 finals at the AO, but only 2 at the US Open. That constitutes greater expertise at the AO in my view. If you disagree that's your opinion. Do you realise how much of a joke you make yourself appear to be when you feel the need to post such a trivial difference of opinion in such a snarky manner? :snicker Jeepers. Imagine if it was an important issue :nono

You do realise that actually winning the event is better than a half a dozen losses in the final, no?