Will Nadal pass Federer?

[GameSetAndMath]

Djokovic deals with pressure all the time against various opponents. Why does he face any more pressure at the French Open than at other events?

This time it was because of completion of Noleslam2.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger having less than 10 Wimbledons and 7 USO's is why this is a conversation. He needs to make up for all the chokejobs and win a couple more.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger having less than 10 Wimbledons and 7 USO's is why this is a conversation. He needs to make up for all the chokejobs and win a couple more.

I don't know whether he will ever win another USO. May be a Wimby.

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic has toughed the hem of Nadal's garment more than a few times at Roland Garros. Dig into your memory a little bit Moxie. The 2012 final was very close, the 2013 final went 5 sets and was won 9-7 in the 5th, and Djokovic won the first set of the 2014 final before obliterating Nadal in 2015.

The last two years Djokovic has lost to inferior opponents and Nadal was clearly vulnerable today. Djokovic should be holding the trophy right now, as he is the better player, but he choked against Thiem because he refuses to address his problems against the Wawrinka/Thiem types.

Talk to our friend Darth as to what he thinks about close-but-no-cigar. 2012 was not that close, and if you didn't like Thiem today, than you shouldn't have been anymore please with Djokovic in 2012 final. Or even less so...he lost the first and the 2nd, and only won the 3rd because it rained the whole time. 2013 Nadal served for it in the 4th, so Djoker lucky to be in the 5th, as Rafa tightened up, also he lost the 2nd set 1-6 in that one. 2014 ND took a set. Good for him. And 2015 Nadal was rubbish. As I said, his B+ game, not his C- game.

And you can dream that Novak would be holding the trophy right now, but he didn't even make the final. Keep re-writing history to suit yourself. Won't do you any good.

Fun to see around, though.

 

[calitennis127]

Talk to our friend Darth as to what he thinks about close-but-no-cigar. 2012 was not that close, and if you didn't like Thiem today, than you shouldn't have been anymore please with Djokovic in 2012 final. Or even less so...he lost the first and the 2nd, and only won the 3rd because it rained the whole time. 2013 Nadal served for it in the 4th, so Djoker lucky to be in the 5th, as Rafa tightened up, also he lost the 2nd set 1-6 in that one. 2014 ND took a set. Good for him. And 2015 Nadal was rubbish. As I said, his B+ game, not his C- game.

And you can dream that Novak would be holding the trophy right now, but he didn't even make the final. Keep re-writing history to suit yourself. Won't do you any good.

Fun to see around, though.

In 2012 Djokovic won the 4th set 6-2 and lost the 4th set 7-5. There is no comparison between that and the total flop of Thiem in the third and fourth sets (which were not even competitive) today.

As for the 2013 match, a 5-set match is a 5-set match. For you to act like Nadal was leaps ahead is just plain stupid. Djokovic won the second set 6-3.

In 2014 Djokovic was up a set and a break....he was 10 minutes from winning but then buckled up at the end of the second set. There is no way Nadal would have come back from 2 sets to 0 down.

I am not rewriting history. I am simply saying that Djokovic has underachieved severely at the French Open, which he has.

And I am also saying that you're very, very, very lucky Nadal did not play Djokovic today. Why should you be so offended by that? I think everyone who is logical in their thinking knows that.

 

[Bonaca]

Talk to our friend Darth as to what he thinks about close-but-no-cigar. 2012 was not that close, and if you didn't like Thiem today, than you shouldn't have been anymore please with Djokovic in 2012 final. Or even less so...he lost the first and the 2nd, and only won the 3rd because it rained the whole time. 2013 Nadal served for it in the 4th, so Djoker lucky to be in the 5th, as Rafa tightened up, also he lost the 2nd set 1-6 in that one. 2014 ND took a set. Good for him. And 2015 Nadal was rubbish. As I said, his B+ game, not his C- game.

And you can dream that Novak would be holding the trophy right now, but he didn't even make the final. Keep re-writing history to suit yourself. Won't do you any good.

Fun to see around, though.

I can follow everything you wrote and also your opinion from your point of view is understandable for me.
But do you really think Rafa would have had an easier match against Novak? Thiem isn’t a better player than Novak, not even a better clay court player.
Novak always had the game to trouble Nadal even on clay, without the ultra high risk everyone else have to take.

 

[Moxie]

I can follow everything you wrote and also your opinion from your point of view is understandable for me.
But do you really think Rafa would have had an easier match against Novak? Thiem isn’t a better player than Novak, not even a better clay court player.
Novak always had the game to trouble Nadal even on clay, without the ultra high risk everyone else have to take.

I think Novak is more in his head, but Novak is also 7 years older than Thiem, and he had the pressure of the Nole Slam. I'm not saying it would have been easier, but I do think he'd have won it.

 

[Moxie]

In 2012 Djokovic won the 4th set 6-2 and lost the 4th set 7-5. There is no comparison between that and the total flop of Thiem in the third and fourth sets (which were not even competitive) today.

As for the 2013 match, a 5-set match is a 5-set match. For you to act like Nadal was leaps ahead is just plain stupid. Djokovic won the second set 6-3.

In 2014 Djokovic was up a set and a break....he was 10 minutes from winning but then buckled up at the end of the second set. There is no way Nadal would have come back from 2 sets to 0 down.

I am not rewriting history. I am simply saying that Djokovic has underachieved severely at the French Open, which he has.

And I am also saying that you're very, very, very lucky Nadal did not play Djokovic today. Why should you be so offended by that? I think everyone who is logical in their thinking knows that.

You are rewriting history. And you're forever hammering this pretend "would never have come back from 2 sets down." If you're saying that Nole "might" have won those sets, I can say Rafa "might" have come back from the deficit. You aren't "logical" to have your revision of what happened and yet be sure of the further outcome, without admitting that another factor "could" have also been so. I don't say that Nadal was always "leaps" ahead of Novak, though he has often been...the wins over Novak show it. You can think he's underachieved by losing so many finals, but he's lost to the guy who won it thing 12 times. That ain't luck, now, is it?

 

[Bonaca]

You are rewriting history. And you're forever hammering this pretend "would never have come back from 2 sets down." If you're saying that Nole "might" have won those sets, I can say Rafa "might" have come back from the deficit. You aren't "logical" to have your revision of what happened and yet be sure of the further outcome, without admitting that another factor "could" have also been so. I don't say that Nadal was always "leaps" ahead of Novak, though he has often been...the wins over Novak show it. You can think he's underachieved by losing so many finals, but he's lost to the guy who won it thing 12 times. That ain't luck, now, is it?

I will never go into this GOAT war, because there is no room for a single goat beside such an dominant player on clay. And vice versa when looking on the success on grass and HC.
There are three greatest players of all time, and this will not change during our lifetime.
We are very lucky because of the possibility to witness that life!

 

[tented]

I will never go into this GOAT war, because there is no room for a single goat beside such an dominant player on clay. And vice versa when looking on the success on grass and HC.
There are three greatest players of all time, and this will not change during our lifetime.
We are very lucky because of the possibility to witness that life!

We’re in an unprecedented era, with an embarrassment of riches. No one could have seen this coming a decade ago — to have three of the all-time greatest men playing each other at the same time.

The 70s were great, with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Evert, Navratilova, etc., but this era is better, with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Serena, and the Bryan brothers.

Even as a huge Rafa fan, I think Roger is the GOAT, for several reasons, but the current Big 3 top the list of all-time greats, IMO, especially because they’re playing at the same time, yet each having tremendous success.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In 2012 Djokovic won the 4th set 6-2 and lost the 4th set 7-5. There is no comparison between that and the total flop of Thiem in the third and fourth sets (which were not even competitive) today.

As for the 2013 match, a 5-set match is a 5-set match. For you to act like Nadal was leaps ahead is just plain stupid. Djokovic won the second set 6-3.

In 2014 Djokovic was up a set and a break....he was 10 minutes from winning but then buckled up at the end of the second set. There is no way Nadal would have come back from 2 sets to 0 down.

I am not rewriting history. I am simply saying that Djokovic has underachieved severely at the French Open, which he has.

And I am also saying that you're very, very, very lucky Nadal did not play Djokovic today. Why should you be so offended by that? I think everyone who is logical in their thinking knows that.

Djokovic was never a set and a break up in the 2014 final. He was a set up, that's it. Then Nadal broke in the second set, Djokovic broke back, before Nadal broke again to win it. He won the other two sets fairly routinely. So yes, you literally did just re-write history.

The 2012 final was obviously competitive, but I mean Djokovic was down two sets to love. The closest he's come is to actually tie the match, which he failed to do. So that's it: "he could have tied the match" is the closest he's got.

As far as their 2013 semi (not a final), Nadal was the much better player that day and Novak wasn't at all impressive, and it should have been over in 4 when Nadal served for the match. That said, Novak was up a break in the fifth and that can't be ignored. Definitely an extremely competitive match.

Did it occur to anyone that Djokovic perhaps just isn't THAT good on clay? (I'm using that term very loosely, and I mean not "that" good by his high standards). There's a reason he loses to these inferior players you referred to in an earlier post, and that the h2h is so lopsided in Nadal's favor at RG, where Novak's only victory came in Nadal's worst ever season (this is a fact. I'm sure you have some theory about it, but it's a literal fact).

 

[Bonaca]

Djokovic was never a set and a break up in the 2014 final. He was a set up, that's it. Then Nadal broke in the second set, Djokovic broke back, before Nadal broke again to win it. He won the other two sets fairly routinely. So yes, you literally did just re-write history.

The 2012 final was obviously competitive, but I mean Djokovic was down two sets to love. The closest he's come is to actually tie the match, which he failed to do. So that's it: "he could have tied the match" is the closest he's got.

As far as their 2013 semi (not a final), Nadal was the much better player that day and Novak wasn't at all impressive, and it should have been over in 4 when Nadal served for the match. That said, Novak was up a break in the fifth and that can't be ignored. Definitely an extremely competitive match.

Did it occur to anyone that Djokovic perhaps just isn't THAT good on clay? (I'm using that term very loosely, and I mean not "that" good by his high standards). There's a reason he loses to these inferior players you referred to in an earlier post, and that the h2h is so lopsided in Nadal's favor at RG, where Novak's only victory came in Nadal's worst ever season (this is a fact. I'm sure you have some theory about it, but it's a literal fact).

As a huge Novak fan I have to admit that Nadal is and ever was the better player on clay, especially in Paris.
On the other side it is also truth, no player has more chances to beat Nadal on clay than Novak has.
Wished we could have witnessed another battle of these two at this special stage.
Im not sure if we will get another opportunity.

 

[El Dude]

Passing Roger means three more Slams...and that assumes that Roger doesn't win another.

I know we saw what we saw at Roland Garros, but to win three more is a tall order. First and foremost, he has to stay healthy. Not just healthy enough to play, but healthy enough to win. Secondly, the young guys are getting better. Still a far cry from Rafa on clay, but the gap is narrowing - and tennis, like all sports, is a game of margins. Maybe a 25 year old Thiem can't beat a 33 year old Rafa, but what about a 28 year old Thiem and a 36 year old Rafa? Or what about a 21 or 22 year old Tsitsipas? The point being, Rafa won't get any better...he'll only lose a bit here and there, while the young guys will continue to improve. Couple that with, say, an achy knee, and it is only a matter of time before we see Rafa lose at RG.

Now there are three other Slams. But while Rafa is still an elite performer off clay, he's a mortal elite player. He might win another USO or AO, but the competition is thick and getting thicker.

As far as Rafa's actual chances, I'd say he has about an 80% of winning another Slam and then it reduces by about 20% per Slam. Like so:
My guess for how many more Slams Rafa wins:

0 more (18): 20%
1+ more (19+): 80%
2+ more (20+): 60%
3+ more (21+: 40%
4+ more (22+): 20%
5+ more (23+): <10%
6+ more (24+): <5%

I also wouldn't be surprised of a scenario were Roger, Rafa, and Novak all finish with the same number...either 20 or 21. Either way, I do think they'll all end up within 2 Slams of each other, so somewhere in the 18-22 range.

 

[rafanoy1992]

Passing Roger means three more Slams...and that assumes that Roger doesn't win another.

I know we saw what we saw at Roland Garros, but to win three more is a tall order. First and foremost, he has to stay healthy. Not just healthy enough to play, but healthy enough to win. Secondly, the young guys are getting better. Still a far cry from Rafa on clay, but the gap is narrowing - and tennis, like all sports, is a game of margins. Maybe a 25 year old Thiem can't beat a 33 year old Rafa, but what about a 28 year old Thiem and a 36 year old Rafa? Or what about a 21 or 22 year old Tsitsipas? The point being, Rafa won't get any better...he'll only lose a bit here and there, while the young guys will continue to improve. Couple that with, say, an achy knee, and it is only a matter of time before we see Rafa lose at RG.

Now there are three other Slams. But while Rafa is still an elite performer off clay, he's a mortal elite player. He might win another USO or AO, but the competition is thick and getting thicker.

As far as Rafa's actual chances, I'd say he has about an 80% of winning another Slam and then it reduces by about 20% per Slam. Like so:
My guess for how many more Slams Rafa wins:

0 more (18): 20%
1+ more (19+): 80%
2+ more (20+): 60%
3+ more (21+: 40%
4+ more (22+): 20%
5+ more (23+): <10%
6+ more (24+): <5%

I also wouldn't be surprised of a scenario were Roger, Rafa, and Novak all finish with the same number...either 20 or 21. Either way, I do think they'll all end up within 2 Slams of each other, so somewhere in the 18-22 range.

Wow, you are giving Nadal 60% chance of winning at least three more slams. It is actually pretty high even for a Nadal fan like me. What percentage do you give Federer that he least win 1 more slam?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As I said before, if at the end of 2019, if the diff is less than or equal to two, Ralph will most likely pass Fed.

If the diff is 4, Ralph will most likely not pass. Of course the chances of diff becoming 4 by end of 2019 is negligible.

If the diff is 3 (where it is for a long time), we get into the murky zone where no one will have any idea what will happen.

 

[El Dude]

Wow, you are giving Nadal 60% chance of winning at least three more slams. It is actually pretty high even for a Nadal fan like me. What percentage do you give Federer that he least win 1 more slam?

No, I'm giving him a 60% chance of winning 2 or more, 40% of 3 or more. Right now I'd give Roger about a 40% of winning another Slam.

 

[rafanoy1992]

By winning his 18th Slam today, Nadal is ahead of time relative to when Federer won his 18th Slam.

Age when winning the 18th Slam:

Nadal (33 years old)
Federer (35 years old and 5 months)

If we are going this pace, then Nadal has 3.5 years to win at least two more slams (until the 2022 US Open). Now, that's assuming Federer does not win another major. Also, I do not think Nadal will win slams by the age of 35 to 36 years old.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

By winning his 18th Slam today, Nadal is ahead of time relative to when Federer won his 18th Slam.

Age when winning the 18th Slam:

Nadal (33 years old)
Federer (35 years old and 5 months)

If we are going this pace, then Nadal has 3.5 years to win at least two more slams (until the 2022 US Open). Now, that's assuming Federer does not win another major. Also, I do not think Nadal will win slams by the age of 35 to 36 years old.

What you conveniently forget is that Rafa turned pro at 15 where as Fed turned pro at 17. So, at any particular age (after 17), Rafa has two more years of mileage on his body than Fed. Here I am not even talking about mileage typically attributed to the difference in the styles of play of the two players.

 

[rafanoy1992]

What you conveniently forget is that Rafa turned pro at 15 where as Fed turned pro at 17. So, at any particular age (after 17), Rafa has two more years of mileage on his body than Fed. Here I am not even talking about mileage typically attributed to the difference in the styles of play of the two players.

That's why I said, I do not think Nadal will win majors at age 35 and 36 like Federer did in 2017 and 2018 and maybe even 2019. I know Nadal's injuries history and his style of play. Heck, I am still very much surprised he still playing at a high level at this point of his career considering the injuries AND style of play.

 

[Fiero425]

What you conveniently forget is that Rafa turned pro at 15 where as Fed turned pro at 17. So, at any particular age (after 17), Rafa has two more years of mileage on his body than Fed. Here I am not even talking about mileage typically attributed to the difference in the styles of play of the two players.

That's on Rafa & his child abuser team! His parents more or < sold him to his uncle & Rafa systematically was worked like a machine! :whistle: