Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

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:

Ha, I'll give you props for originality. I mean, that's an AWFUL statement to make and you should be ashamed, but still, original.

 

[Moxie]

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:

You have totally jumped the shark. Nadal turned pro at 15 because he had no one left to play outside of the pros. Were Borg's parents "child abusers?" A prodigy is a prodigy.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Rafa talks the talk, but Roger walks the walk.

But, being honest, I never tried to think about, 'Well, [am] I going to catch Roger' or not," Nadal said. "I am not very worried about this stuff, no?".
"You can't be frustrated all the time because the neighbor has a bigger house than you or a bigger TV or better garden. That's not the way that I see life, you know. ... I'm going to try my best to keep enjoying tennis, giving myself chances to compete at the highest level, and we will see what's going on."

 

[Jelenafan]

Why in the world would Rafa fixate on the Majors chase in interviews? He probably finds it distracting and it’s putting heavier expectations and pressure. There’s been times when Rafa was seriously injured and there was talk of his not being competitive again, playing *any* more tennis, much less winning one more major. That colors his perspective far more I would imagine then Federer.

*If*he gets to 20 or 21 Rafa no doubt will talk about it and what it means, otherwise he probably finds it wasteful speculation to pontificate about it in interviews.

 

[Moxie]

Rafa talks the talk, but Roger walks the walk.

But, being honest, I never tried to think about, 'Well, [am] I going to catch Roger' or not," Nadal said. "I am not very worried about this stuff, no?".
"You can't be frustrated all the time because the neighbor has a bigger house than you or a bigger TV or better garden. That's not the way that I see life, you know. ... I'm going to try my best to keep enjoying tennis, giving myself chances to compete at the highest level, and we will see what's going on."

I honestly don't understand this post. What do you mean by "talk the talk" and "walk the walk?" I also heard him say this. Do you object to it, somehow?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I honestly don't understand this post. What do you mean by "talk the talk" and "walk the walk?" I also heard him say this. Do you object to it, somehow?

What I meant was that Rafa says he does not care (talks the talk) but is taking all the actions to pass by winning.

Roger on the other hand (walks the walk) by losing.

 

[DarthFed]

Nads will say his usual deflective bullshit. He is of course targeting it hard, why wouldn't he. It's up to Roger to treat these next couple years as life and death and win another couple majors. Otherwise he gets passed and becomes just some rich guy that was great awhile ago. For some reason it doesn't seem to be sinking in with him. Flailing about on clay with worthless results is a bad sign

 

[Moxie]

What I meant was that Rafa says he does not care (talks the talk) but is taking all the actions to pass by winning.

Roger on the other hand (walks the walk) by losing.

This is a lot of tangled thinking. Maybe you should just consider that people mean what they say. Or that they want to win a tournament because they believe they can, and have.

 

[El Dude]

Darth, while Slam count is the big kahuna among tennis records and I'm under no illusions that Roger would love to finish as the leader, I don't think it as singularly important to him--or the others--as it is to you. For you it seems like "Slam title leader or you suck and will be forgotten," whereas for Roger and others, the Slam count is merely the biggest prize among other prizes. And no matter who finishes as the leader, all three will go down as the three greatest players of the Open Era.

My preference is that Roger maintains the lead. But if he doesn't, it isn't the end of the world. I'll love him no less, nor will I think he is any less great. But I also don't see him as head-and-shoulders above Novak and Rafa now; I think they are similarly great. Roger has the best resume, but he's also olderr and the other two have time to catch up, or at least narrow the gap.

They're all great, will always be seen as among the greatest ever, and unless one does something ridiculous like win a calendar Slam in 2020, we'll get to argue about who is the greatest for decades to come.

 

[Moxie]

Darth, while Slam count is the big kahuna among tennis records and I'm under no illusions that Roger would love to finish as the leader, I don't think it as singularly important to him--or the others--as it is to you. For you it seems like "Slam title leader or you suck and will be forgotten," whereas for Roger and others, the Slam count is merely the biggest prize among other prizes. And no matter who finishes as the leader, all three will go down as the three greatest players of the Open Era.

My preference is that Roger maintains the lead. But if he doesn't, it isn't the end of the world. I'll love him no less, nor will I think he is any less great. But I also don't see him as head-and-shoulders above Novak and Rafa now; I think they are similarly great. Roger has the best resume, but he's also olderr and the other two have time to catch up, or at least narrow the gap.

They're all great, will always be seen as among the greatest ever, and unless one does something ridiculous like win a calendar Slam in 2020, we'll get to argue about who is the greatest for decades to come.

I agree with you on the notion that the Big 3 are going to live long in memory, and nothing will change that, no matter how they finish. I don't even agree that the CYGS would seal the deal, unless it was Roger. Even if Rafa or Novak passes Roger in Slam count, it'll be by one at best, and that won't end the argument.

 

[Jelenafan]

My preference is that Roger maintains the lead. But if he doesn't, it isn't the end of the world. I'll love him no less, nor will I think he is any less great. But I also don't see him as head-and-shoulders above Novak and Rafa now; I think they are similarly great. Roger has the best resume, but he's also olderr and the other two have time to catch up, or at least narrow the gap.

They're all great, will always be seen as among the greatest ever, and unless one does something ridiculous like win a calendar Slam in 2020, we'll get to argue about who is the greatest for decades to come.

You’ve hit it on the nail. Their fans should be thrilled with what they bring to the court. Gauging at this point your affection for them on their final Majors total says less about the player and more about fans vicarious expectations.

Loved Pistol Pete and just because now he’s *only* 4th in the all time Majors tally doesn’t change things.

 

[monfed]

Darth, while Slam count is the big kahuna among tennis records and I'm under no illusions that Roger would love to finish as the leader, I don't think it as singularly important to him--or the others--as it is to you. For you it seems like "Slam title leader or you suck and will be forgotten," whereas for Roger and others, the Slam count is merely the biggest prize among other prizes. And no matter who finishes as the leader, all three will go down as the three greatest players of the Open Era.

My preference is that Roger maintains the lead. But if he doesn't, it isn't the end of the world. I'll love him no less, nor will I think he is any less great. But I also don't see him as head-and-shoulders above Novak and Rafa now; I think they are similarly great. Roger has the best resume, but he's also olderr and the other two have time to catch up, or at least narrow the gap.

They're all great, will always be seen as among the greatest ever, and unless one does something ridiculous like win a calendar Slam in 2020, we'll get to argue about who is the greatest for decades to come.

The thing is Fed doesn't care(or never anticipated dull to run him so close) that's why he's given some lackadaisical performances like USO 09 and matches where he should've tanked like RG 11 SF.

He has also been lax with his scheduling since about 2017 playing Montreal when he shouldn't have, then played this clay season as if it's a farewell year.

Fed plays solely for the love of the game and probably not having anything to sitting at home if he retired. I think his fans are more concerned about the slam record than he is.

The same doesn't hold true for Nadal though. That guy is so obsessed with the slam record and doesn't ever admit that he is because he's scared of jinxing it. However, Uncle Phony has already admitted his true intentions.

As to whether dull equals or crosses his slam record, it will be a hollow one as it's clay skewed and noone in their right mind would consider him the GOAT when there's another guy in the same era(could be two if faker keeps winning the other 3 slams) who has a more balanced resume. It's really the dulltards chanting dull's name as a GOAT contender, they need to get real and accept that Fed has far superior racquet skills.

 

[Jelenafan]

Fed plays solely for the love of the game and probably not having anything to sitting at home if he retired.

He doesn’t want to have to take care of his two sets of twins, that’s why he still plays.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

this is now way too crazy to predict..

normality flew our of the window and was last seen getting pissed on absinthe behind an altocumulus cloud.

 

[monfed]

He doesn’t want to have to take care of his two sets of twins, that’s why he still plays.

I think he'll give that work to the babysitters and he'll just relax and watch his highlight reels on youtube.

 

[Moxie]

this is now way too crazy to predict..

normality flew our of the window and was last seen getting pissed on absinthe behind an altocumulus cloud.

At least now someone is talking sense.

 

[Michael;Kiwi]

I still think Nadal is unlikely to pass Federer. If we just look at Roland Garros Nadal would have to win three more. This means he would have to win three in a row with the third at 36. This would give him 15 French Opens, more majors than Sampras. I just can’t comprehend that. Therefore, he would probably have to win a non-French. This is possible, but he is already 33 and would have to get past Djokovic and a younger generation. This is not impossible, but I think Federer is just as likely a winner at the other three slams as Nadal. I’m confident that Federer desperately wants to finish on top and will do everything he can to get a 21st. If he does so I think he is safe from being passed. However, the odds of a tie seems substantial.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I still don't think it will happen. Maaaybe he ties him but for him to pass Roger he needed to win Wimbledon last year. That was a major missed opportunity.

 

[Fiero425]

I still don't think it will happen. Maaaybe he ties him but for him to pass Roger he needed to win Wimbledon last year. That was a major missed opportunity.

Truly! Nole was still at the end of his "struggle" to "get back" to what he was as a player! Rafa had every opportunity, including break points that should have given him the match! I appreciated "the CHOKE!" The clay GOAT hasn't even played a final since 2011 when he dropped that match to Djokovic in 4 sets! :whistle:

 

[atttomole]

I still think Nadal is unlikely to pass Federer. If we just look at Roland Garros Nadal would have to win three more. This means he would have to win three in a row with the third at 36. This would give him 15 French Opens, more majors than Sampras. I just can’t comprehend that. Therefore, he would probably have to win a non-French. This is possible, but he is already 33 and would have to get past Djokovic and a younger generation. This is not impossible, but I think Federer is just as likely a winner at the other three slams as Nadal. I’m confident that Federer desperately wants to finish on top and will do everything he can to get a 21st. If he does so I think he is safe from being passed. However, the odds of a tie seems substantial.

It’s only 2 majors. Nadal is able to win another 3 RGs. On the other hand, I don’t see Federer winning more than 1 more major.