Will Nadal pass Federer?

[DarthFed]

^ 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.

Speaking of revisionist history...unless you want to argue about 2006 AO (that Rafa would have somehow won that tourney) the only one Rafa skipped that Roger won is 2009 Wimbledon.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Yee of little faith when it comes to USO. Don't let the last 6 years at the USO fool you, Roger can still play on fast hard courts. He's been his own worst enemy there but one of these next two years he will reach at least the final.

 

[britbox]

^ Touche brother. I still penned him for a Wimbledon title pre-2012 when you'd written him off for one.

 

[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.

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

Clearly not, Rafa won RG last year. By "over" I mean his chances of being a contender at slams. If he goes slamless now through RG '16 it'd be tough for him to right the ship.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Touche brother. I still penned him for a Wimbledon title pre-2012 when you'd written him off for one.

Actually I called that Wimbledon win before I saw the draw. Only time I truly thought of writing Roger off for good was after 2011 USO. That was all about wondering whether his heart/mind was still in the game. I didn't write him off in 2013 but it was clear by the middle of that year that it was a completely "lost year"

Now that said, the odds might not be in his favor to win another slam, but to say he has little to no chance is inaccurate.

 

[Kieran]

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.

Yee of little faith when it comes to USO. Don't let the last 6 years at the USO fool you, Roger can still play on fast hard courts. He's been his own worst enemy there but one of these next two years he will reach at least the final.

He's showing lapses now that never occurred a few years back, Darth. The stars aligned for him so sweetly last year that Bodo was gloating before the tournament even began: "The topic being the fact that Federer is going to win his 18th Grand Slam title at Flushing Meadows, and there isn’t a danged thing the haters or his rivals can do about it."

Unfortunately for Mr Bodo, Roger got manhandled in the semis by Cough Drop.

I think it's going to take something even more unusual for him to win another major. Time and tide, and all that stuff...

 

[britbox]

I definitely remember the discussions mate... you might have done a volte-face at the tournament in question, but you'd ruled out Wimbledon before that and said the USO was his only hope.

 

[britbox]

..and yes, Federer can still win on fast courts. I wouldn't rule out further titles in Cincy and Dubai... but two weeks, best of 5 at Flushing? I don't see it mate - would love to be proved wrong however.

 

[DarthFed]

I definitely remember the discussions mate... you might have done a volte-face at the tournament in question, but you'd ruled out Wimbledon before that and said the USO was his only hope.

For the 2010 - 2012 period I did think USO was his best chance, or even the one I felt he "should" still win. At Wimbledon his ROS has really been a problem for a long time but I liked the 2012 play enough leading up to think that he'd win there regardless of the draw. For the record I have a similar feeling this year.

 

[DarthFed]

..and yes, Federer can still win on fast courts. I wouldn't rule out further titles in Cincy and Dubai... but two weeks, best of 5 at Flushing? I don't see it mate - would love to be proved wrong however.

Just has to avoid the long matches, IMO he lost last year in the Monfils match. Beating Cilic playing like that would have been really tough but if he had gotten there unscathed he could've made it a match and maybe put some doubts in Marin's head.

 

[britbox]

^ I hope so. It would be the best dose of crow I could eat.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Yee of little faith when it comes to USO. Don't let the last 6 years at the USO fool you, Roger can still play on fast hard courts. He's been his own worst enemy there but one of these next two years he will reach at least the final.

He's showing lapses now that never occurred a few years back, Darth. The stars aligned for him so sweetly last year that Bodo was gloating before the tournament even began: "The topic being the fact that Federer is going to win his 18th Grand Slam title at Flushing Meadows, and there isn’t a danged thing the haters or his rivals can do about it."

Unfortunately for Mr Bodo, Roger got manhandled in the semis by Cough Drop.

I think it's going to take something even more unusual for him to win another major. Time and tide, and all that stuff...

He's had those lapses starting in 2008 really. Naturally he is not the same player now so the lapses are a bigger issue. The stars didn't align for him at 2012 Wimbledon, he survived a couple early rounds and then breezed through the QF to arrive fresh in the semis and then took out Djokovic and Murray. The main handicap for Roger in best of 5 is that he needs to win effortlessly up to at least the semis. Even this past week he got to the QF pretty fresh and if Stan was Mr. Hyde that match we might be seeing Roger in the finals and relatively fresh. I still think at Wimbledon and USO there are real chances for it.

 

[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.

Speaking of revisionist history...unless you want to argue about 2006 AO (that Rafa would have somehow won that tourney) the only one Rafa skipped that Roger won is 2009 Wimbledon.

Well, let's just say I'm of the belief that Nadal was injured at the 2009 FO, which was a huge resurgence in Federer's career. And history would have been quite different had Fed not won that (a tournament that happened to give him a career slam).

Also, it is hilarious seeing a Fed fan (not you) say Roger was "less good" in 2008 (and he was, don't get me wrong), despite the fact that he was great at Wimbledon until the final (and was great again after the first two sets), reached the RG final, won the US Open, reached the AO final in 2009, then won 3 out of the next four slam (while epically messing up one that he should have won), but at the same time, write about Novak's win yesterday over a flat out washed up Nadal who can barely beat anyone in the top 15 without bringing that elephant in the room up. I mean, Novak is far and away the best, and he deserves all that he can get, but the double standards and bias are absurd.

 

[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.

Clearly not, Rafa won RG last year. By "over" I mean his chances of being a contender at slams. If he goes slamless now through RG '16 it'd be tough for him to right the ship.

Sigh, I meant his chances of catching up to Roger were over when he didn't win that match.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

OK, I'll say it out loud:

I believe, with 100% certitude, that if Nadal were healthy he would have won the FO, like he won it 4 times before and 5 times since, and he would have beaten Roger without breaking a sweat, like he always does on clay. But no yeah, I'm sure THAT year would have been different. Roger had him figured out.

 

[DarthFed]

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

Clearly not, Rafa won RG last year. By "over" I mean his chances of being a contender at slams. If he goes slamless now through RG '16 it'd be tough for him to right the ship.

Sigh, I meant his chances of catching up to Roger were over when he didn't win that match.

I know that's what you meant, but I was referring to his chances of even remaining relevant. And the fact that Rafa won RG last year shows that his chances of catching Roger were not done, and I'd say they still aren't done now though it's obviously tougher.

 

[Federberg]

^:laydownlaughing
IF is one of Kiplings great poems. I'm a huge fan.
Now.. back to woulda coulda shoulda uzzled

 

[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.

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

Facts: Murray is a US Open champion. He's an AO finalist. That is no joke. No snark needed. Facts speak for themselves. Of course if you were ever capable of assessing what goes on the court we could have a discussion that's a little more interesting, but then again, you thought as recently as two months ago that Nadal was still in his prime and he needed to lose the FO before you make up your mind. You also barely spotted declines in movement.

That's the kind of joke I'm entertaining here. Before resorting to personal insults, get a clue.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Speaking of revisionist history...unless you want to argue about 2006 AO (that Rafa would have somehow won that tourney) the only one Rafa skipped that Roger won is 2009 Wimbledon.

Well, let's just say I'm of the belief that Nadal was injured at the 2009 FO, which was a huge resurgence in Federer's career. And history would have been quite different had Fed not won that (a tournament that happened to give him a career slam).

Also, it is hilarious seeing a Fed fan (not you) say Roger was "less good" in 2008 (and he was, don't get me wrong), despite the fact that he was great at Wimbledon until the final (and was great again after the first two sets), reached the RG final, won the US Open, reached the AO final in 2009, then won 3 out of the next four slam (while epically messing up one that he should have won), but at the same time, write about Novak's win yesterday over a flat out washed up Nadal who can barely beat anyone in the top 15 without bringing that elephant in the room up. I mean, Novak is far and away the best, and he deserves all that he can get, but the double standards and bias are absurd.

And I'd say that Roger's 2008 was badly compromised by mono at the start of the year which led to a loss in training and the loss in confidence that came with all the losses he was unaccustomed to. Roger stunk up the place until Wimbledon and then managed to have his 65 match win streak on grass snapped. The USO was his only good tournament of note. Pretty easy to play the what if game. But what Roger's 2008 and Rafa's RG 2009 have in common is that both players took the court and lost...no excuses.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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?

It's Federberg, so no, he doesn't.