Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Nadalfan2013]

The question isn’t whether Nadal will reach 20 slams, it’s whether he will reach 20 RGs.

 

[Fiero425]

The question isn’t whether Nadal will reach 20 slams, it’s whether he will reach 20 RGs.

In a word "NO!" I have to believe the NG'rs won't allow Fedalovic to hang on that long! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There should be term limits.

 

[Fiero425]

There should be term limits.

Tell me about it! Back in the day, it was Rosewall's wrinkled, old arse that wouldn't go away; winning/losing matches well into his 40's!

 

[Moxie]

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.

While it's hard to say what Rafa can't do at RG, winning 3 more does seem implausible. "Only" 2 Majors to tie, yes, but they're only getting older, and the competition is likely about to get stiffer, and I don't mean just a rejuvenated Djokovic. Nadal has some advantage in the age department, if he can stay healthy.

 

[rafanoy1992]

It will be interesting to see on how both Federer and Nadal will fare in these next three slams coming up (Wimbledon, US Open, and 2020 Australian Open). Like Moxie has stated, they are all getting older and the competition is getting better so it is kinda crucial that they are able to get a slam before they stop winning them at a consistent basis.

Because Nadal is the one behind Federer, it is more crucial for him to actually try to win one Slam outside of RG in the next three slams to increase his chances at the very least tie Federer. If he is still at 18 majors by the time 2020 Roland Garros comes around, then I do not see him passing Federer or maybe even tying him.

Now, the above statement is contingent on Federer not winning 1 more Slam. If Federer does win 1 more Slam, then yeah Nadal will not pass him for sure.

 

[Moxie]

Tell me about it! Back in the day, it was Rosewall's wrinkled, old arse that wouldn't go away; winning/losing matches well into his 40's!

But even he stopped winning Majors at 37. Funny thing about Rosewall: he was a natural lefty who was taught to play right-handed, and never really had better than a powder-puff serve.

 

[Jelenafan]

It’s hard to guess because

But even he stopped winning Majors at 37. Funny thing about Rosewall: he was a natural lefty who was taught to play right-handed, and never really had better than a powder-puff serve.

I was a child ( I Tell ya! ) when Rosewall played late in his career and I vaguely recalled thinking he looked like a farmer gone to town. He has this perfectly compact and tidy slice BH.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

But even he stopped winning Majors at 37. Funny thing about Rosewall: he was a natural lefty who was taught to play right-handed, and never really had better than a powder-puff serve.

Probably the reason why with his powder-puff serve he could never win Wimbledon

 

[Jelenafan]

Probably the reason why with his powder-puff serve he could never win Wimbledon

Poor Rosewall, he just never quite got the breaks at Wimbledon. 4 times the bridesmaid. First he lost 2 tight 4 set matches in FInals when he was an amateur, then had an 11 year gap where as a Pro he was barred from the Majors. Once they opened up again, Rosewall lost a 5-set final with Newcombe in 1970 (had a long SF versus his more rested opponent). Already "old" as a Pro, he couldn't play Wimbledon in 72 & 73 for different tennis politics, and and of course as a 39 year old made his final Finals in 1974 versus 21 year old Connnors and was crushed. It was the worst matchup, a flat power hitting baseliner with a great return of serve.

Rosewall had won the USO on grass in 1970 even with his "weak" serve, along with 2 AO's (71& 72) so he could best anyone on grass, but again the breaks just didn't go his way. He even did a Lendl before Ivan, skipping the FO several years in his quest to win Wimbledon despite the fact that he was perhaps the top claycourt player, even winning as a Pro in 1968 the French Open and a runnerup the next year. But That was it, he never played the FO again.

Rosewall won the US champs and Australia as an amateur (all on grass) and won them again as a Pro. Same thing with the French Championships on clay.

That's why tennis history is inaccurate as far as gauging recent Major wins as the measure for all time greatness, Rosewall several years as a Pro was recognized as the best player in the world (even over Rod Laver) but alas for his salad days and best form he was barred from playing Wimbledon and the other Slams. 11 years he couldn't play. When tennis opened up he was already 34, and still did incredibly well.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Poor Rosewall, he just never quite got the breaks at Wimbledon. 4 times the bridesmaid. First he lost 2 tight 4 set matches in FInals when he was an amateur, then had an 11 year gap where as a Pro he was barred from the Majors. Once they opened up again, Rosewall lost a 5-set final with Newcombe in 1970 (had a long SF versus his more rested opponent). Already "old" as a Pro, he couldn't play Wimbledon in 72 & 73 for different tennis politics, and and of course as a 39 year old made his final Finals in 1974 versus 21 year old Connnors and was crushed. It was the worst matchup, a flat power hitting baseliner with a great return of serve.

Rosewall had won the USO on grass in 1970 even with his "weak" serve, along with 2 AO's (71& 72) so he could best anyone on grass, but again the breaks just didn't go his way. He even did a Lendl before Ivan, skipping the FO several years in his quest to win Wimbledon despite the fact that he was perhaps the top claycourt player, even winning as a Pro in 1968 the French Open and a runnerup the next year. But That was it, he never played the FO again.

Rosewall won the US champs and Australia as an amateur (all on grass) and won them again as a Pro. Same thing with the French Championships on clay.

That's why tennis history is inaccurate as far as gauging recent Major wins as the measure for all time greatness, Rosewall several years as a Pro was recognized as the best player in the world (even over Rod Laver) but alas for his salad days and best form he was barred from playing Wimbledon and the other Slams. 11 years he couldn't play. When tennis opened up he was already 34, and still did incredibly well.

I have met Ken Rosewall at the Sydney tournament a few years back,he has a yearly luncheon and gets a guest speaker to talk.I asked Ken in his opinion what is the hardest Grand Slam to win,with no hesitation he said the French Open.Ken said physically and mentally it is the hardest of all GS to win.One of my all time favorite Aussie tennis players who had the game to win Wimbledon,great serve and outstanding volley player,Pat Rafter did not win,though won the USO? he said 'he was just not meant to win Wimbledon I cried when he lost....Pat was a wonderful sportsmen and a gentlemen.

I forgot to add,the guest speaker that day was Margaret Court.Margaret won 11 AO titles,I could not understand why she did not do well at Wimbledon,she told me she never felt comfortable on the centre court at Wimbledon.

 

[Hamidreza Roohian]

Nadal is not going to pass Federer given the current form of Roger and Novak on other surfaces than clay. And also the way Roger has turned the tables in their rivalry in the past few years. I think this article has a pretty good explanation of the current state of affairs now.

http://us.blastingnews.com/sports/2...dal-beats-him-at-roland-garros-002934091.html

 

[Moxie]

Nadal is not going to pass Federer given the current form of Roger and Novak on other surfaces than clay. And also the way Roger has turned the tables in their rivalry in the past few years. I think this article has a pretty good explanation of the current state of affairs now.

http://us.blastingnews.com/sports/2...dal-beats-him-at-roland-garros-002934091.html

Welcome, Hamidreza. Looks like you wrote that article. It's a general overview of the Nadal/Fed rivalry, but it doesn't really do more than rehash the run of 5 that Roger won against Rafa in 2017 (with Basel in 2015,) in terms of current state of affairs and doesn't really address Novak at all. As to "turning the tables in their rivalry," this may be a bit optimistic. Firstly, I think you're wrong about Basel and Fed's "new BH." I don't think we saw that until AO 2017. Given that it was Roger's home court, and indoors, and that Rafa was having a terrible year, it was kind of a near-embarrassment for Fed that it went 3, let's be honest. As to the current state of Roger and Novak's tennis off-clay, by their standards, Roger has been erratic and rather mediocre since early last year, and Novak has been rather lackluster since the AO, (and you could add, losing surprisingly in finals at the EOY to Khachanov, then Zverev.) Sure, Rafa hadn't won a title before Rome since sometime last year, but that just shows that they're all showing signs that they can't keep up the indomitable play. Nicely presented article, but I don't think you've made your case, as you offered it above.

 

[Hamidreza Roohian]

Welcome, Hamidreza. Looks like you wrote that article. It's a general overview of the Nadal/Fed rivalry, but it doesn't really do more than rehash the run of 5 that Roger won against Rafa in 2017 (with Basel in 2015,) in terms of current state of affairs and doesn't really address Novak at all. As to "turning the tables in their rivalry," this may be a bit optimistic. Firstly, I think you're wrong about Basel and Fed's "new BH." I don't think we saw that until AO 2017. Given that it was Roger's home court, and indoors, and that Rafa was having a terrible year, it was kind of a near-embarrassment for Fed that it went 3, let's be honest. As to the current state of Roger and Novak's tennis off-clay, by their standards, Roger has been erratic and rather mediocre since early last year, and Novak has been rather lackluster since the AO, (and you could add, losing surprisingly in finals at the EOY to Khachanov, then Zverev.) Sure, Rafa hadn't won a title before Rome since sometime last year, but that just shows that they're all showing signs that they can't keep up the indomitable play. Nicely presented article, but I don't think you've made your case, as you offered it above.

Hi Moxie,

Thanks for your reply although we do not agree on a lot. about Basel, he was already hitting the backhand differently, for sure not as good as AO2017, but the point is even now his backhand is not as strong as 2017. The newer racquet helped the backhand and actually had an inverse effect on his forehand which even now he hasn’t been able to take it to the same level before racquet change. The change in the backhand was evident in basel 2015 and even a little bit in AO 2014 .
Novak, on the other hand is not the point of my talk just now. But if I want to give my opinion, I believe right now he is just peaking at the slams and he is very good at it. I don’t see Nadal beating him at any slam anymore and Roger has a good chance in Wimbly and very little to none on hard courts.

 

[Moxie]

Hi Moxie,

Thanks for your reply although we do not agree on a lot. about Basel, he was already hitting the backhand differently, for sure not as good as AO2017, but the point is even now his backhand is not as strong as 2017. The newer racquet helped the backhand and actually had an inverse effect on his forehand which even now he hasn’t been able to take it to the same level before racquet change. The change in the backhand was evident in basel 2015 and even a little bit in AO 2014 .
Novak, on the other hand is not the point of my talk just now. But if I want to give my opinion, I believe right now he is just peaking at the slams and he is very good at it. I don’t see Nadal beating him at any slam anymore and Roger has a good chance in Wimbly and very little to none on hard courts.

Hi, Hamidreza!

'Not agreeing' is something we do very well around here, so welcome to the fray. I will review Basel highlights, but I still think that match win could hardly have been a huge boost for Roger given his list of advantages at that tournament. You say that Novak isn't the point of your "talk," but he was in the first line of your intro post to the link. Sure, Novak is focusing on Slams, but he didn't do such a great job at peaking for the French, for example. I do agree that Rafa has trouble with Novak off-clay (and some on it,) but I'd give him some chance at Majors going forward, because it's silly to count him out. And I'll always fancy him at RG, even v. Djokovic. Likewise Roger...you can't count him out, but the last time Roger beat Novak at a Major was Wimby in 2012. That said, I don't think Djokovic is about to run the table again. He's more vulnerable to lapses, and he's got the youngsters nipping at his heals.

What you said above is that you don't think Rafa will pass Roger because of the current form of Roger and Novak. My point, as above, is that I think there is a lot of flaw in this thinking. You assume that Roger might win another Major, which I think is a big assumption, after last year's Wimbledon. And you assume that Djokovic is able to stay a strong force. Maybe, for a while, but less consistently, by many indications, and he is vulnerable to trip up by the up-and-comers. As is Nadal and Federer, but all of that remains to be seen. Still, on the other hand, Rafa could pass Roger by staying healthy and focused just for 3 more RGs. So it's hard to state confidently, if you ask me, that Rafa "won't" pass Roger.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

He already passed him as the gold medal is worth 3 slams.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger needs to take this upcoming Wimbledon as life and death and then he wins it. 8 at Wimbledon is a disaster as of now for how he is supposed to play on grass. If he finishes 3 ahead end of this year he still has a decent chance to save the legacy.

 

[Moxie]

He already passed him as the gold medal is worth 3 slams.

You cannot possibly believe that.

 

[Moxie]

Roger needs to take this upcoming Wimbledon as life and death and then he wins it. 8 at Wimbledon is a disaster as of now for how he is supposed to play on grass. If he finishes 3 ahead end of this year he still has a decent chance to save the legacy.

For you, it's life and death. I can't believe that Roger is taking it anything but seriously. If he notches one more, he may end up tied, in this era, but not surpassed. If he sticks at 20, he's vulnerable, at least on the Slam count.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Roger needs to take this upcoming Wimbledon as life and death and then he wins it. 8 at Wimbledon is a disaster as of now for how he is supposed to play on grass. If he finishes 3 ahead end of this year he still has a decent chance to save the legacy.

Rafa won at least 2 slams on each surface but Federer needs at least a 2nd slam on clay or he can never be GOAT.

He also needs to beat Rafa at RG like Rafa beat him at Wimbledon. A GOAT should be able to find a solution.

He also needs to improve the 3-10 record against Rafa in slams to be taken seriously.

And an Olympics gold is needed too because in the Big 3 era it's up there with the slams.