Will Nadal pass Federer?

[monfed]

dull will likely pass Fed in numbers but not in greatness. That's eternally reserved for Federer.

 

[Andy22]

Will now that Nadal upgraded to a John McEnroe, off clay he's seen as greater player than he ever was, for sure Nadal going to pass Federer+ Djokovic pass him as well. Federer becomes the new Pete Sampras watching Djokovic+ Nadal pass him, at least if Djokovic slows down he can end top 2.

 

[brokenshoelace]

With pretty much all the surfaces being so slow, Rafa has a shot. The slow playing conditions have turned Rafa into an all court player, which he isn't.

Give it a rest. Jesus Christ.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I was responding to Jelenafan, who is overselling Rafa. Obviously, they have to play on whatever surface the authorities decide on, but it doesn't mean that they like it. If the US Open and Wimbledon were as fast as they used to be, I don't think Rafa would have so many titles at those slams. It is almost impossible for fast court players to win grand slam titles nowadays. I think, it is time for someone to speak out on surface homogenization

It is time?

You guys have been talking about it for literally over a decade.

 

[atttomole]

Give it a rest. Jesus Christ.

It’s a fair point because the issue always comes up in different forms. Like I said earlier, I was responding to Jelenafan who was doing analysis on Nadal’s chances at the majors, and making reference to Federer.

 

[Andy22]

I think the question should be can Nadal stay ahead of Djokovic? Because we know Nadal going to pass Federer in the next two seasons. The real goat race is between Djokovic+ Nadal, we need Medvedev and the other next generation players to keep stoping Djokovic outside RG like that D.thiem has done on clay.

 

[Bonaca]

I think the question should be can Nadal stay ahead of Djokovic? Because we know Nadal going to pass Federer in the next two seasons. The real goat race is between Djokovic+ Nadal, we need Medvedev and the other next generation players to keep stoping Djokovic outside RG like that D.thiem has done on clay.

Sadly I have to say that I think now it’s between Fedal, whith more chances for Nadal. Even if Roger wins one more, I think it wouldn’t be enough.
3 more than Novak is very much, i repeat myself, us open 19 changed everything for the total slam count. It will become much more difficult for them to win more slams, even for Nadal in Paris.
Nadal made a big step with grabbing this huge opportunity to play the whole tournament without playing the other two.

 

[atttomole]

Tales of Roger's demise are premature. Let's not forget that he was just one ace from winning #21 a couple months ago. You don't go from that to "done" in two months.

He is still the overall second best player on grass, and by this year's result, only by a hair. He and Djokovic are essentially equals on grass, but Novak's got the mental edge.

If he's not the second favorite at the AO, he's close to it. I'm guessing he's done on clay, and doesn't seem to be a real contender at the slow hards of the USO. But I'm not going to call him out at the AO or Wimbledon next year, unless he looks bad in Australia. But yeah, I'd say he probably has two more serious shots at a Slam.

Having a month plus off may do a lot to help Roger recuperate. I wouldn't even be surprised if he skips some tournaments to be fully rejuvenated for the new year. But let's see how he does at the AO before sticking a fork in him. As others have said, he has proved the naysayers wrong, time and time again.

I am not sure if Federer is the second best player on grass.

 

[atttomole]

The notion of how the antique grass would have suited Roger is a non-conversation. You can't say how he'd have played on a surface that he basically didn't win on. You can imagine it, but you can't swear by it. Also, this doesn't allow for any number of players might have done better on it, especially early on. If you change one thing, you change everything.

Federer was going to win more on fast grass. No doubt about that. On the other hand, I don’t think Nadal wound have a Wimbledon title. I remember watching Federer at Wimbledon in 2001 and he was amazing. He had the game to play on that surface. The grass was changed in 2002. I don’t understand why people are against surface diversity. With surface diversity, it becomes more challenging to transition from one grand slam to the other, and the greatness of players can be determined by how they adapt to the very different playing conditions.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Federer was going to win more on fast grass. No doubt about that. On the other hand, I don’t think Nadal wound have a Wimbledon title. I remember watching Federer at Wimbledon in 2001 and he was amazing. He had the game to play on that surface. The grass was changed in 2002. I don’t understand why people are against surface diversity. With surface diversity, it becomes more challenging to transition from one grand slam to the other, and the greatness of players can be determined by how they adapt to the very different playing conditions.

Yes Agassi can win Wimbledon in the 90’s but somehow the superior Nadal wouldn’t have.

 

[Jelenafan]

Yes Agassi can win Wimbledon in the 90’s but somehow the superior Nadal wouldn’t have.

Didn’t Lleyton Hewitt also win pre Federer ? (circa 2002)

The reality is that Wimbledon’s playing conditions have changed and evolved through the decades; 70’s grass with bad bounces and wood rackets won’t make a comeback anytime soon

Funny how Roddick did fairly well at W during Federer’s golden era, arguably the second best grass court player for a few years and nobody ever claimed he was a “complete “ player.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Sadly I have to say that I think now it’s between Fedal, whith more chances for Nadal. Even if Roger wins one more, I think it wouldn’t be enough.
3 more than Novak is very much, i repeat myself, us open 19 changed everything for the total slam count. It will become much more difficult for them to win more slams, even for Nadal in Paris.
Nadal made a big step with grabbing this huge opportunity to play the whole tournament without playing the other two.

So many slams over the last 2 and a half years changed so much for the total slam count, and funnily enough, it ended up balancing out. The single biggest one is by far the Australian Open in 2017. Because it was a direct encounter between Fedal, it meant that the result means a 2-slam swing. In other words, if Nadal had won it, not only would he be at 20 now (let's pretend for the sake of argument that everything else would have played out the same way it did, which isn't a given), but Roger would have 19. Another swing are the last two Wimbledons. If Nadal beats Novak in 2018, same thing happens, you take one away from Novak and you give it to Nadal. If Roger beats Novak this year, same thing... Roger and Novak weren't fully healthy at the US Open and Nadal capitalized. So yeah, you look at it and you can say Rafa was unfortunate not to win Wimbledon in 2018 but got an easy path at the US Open, Roger was unfortunate not to win Wimbledon this year but he could have lost the AO final, Novak's body gave out on him at the US Open this year but he could have easily lost at Wimbledon... That's why looking back at missed opportunities, while understandable, can often be a fickle exercise because these things always have a way of balancing out if the players in question constantly put themselves in a position to win majors.

At this point, if the total slam count is the focal point, every slam for these guys is even bigger than it is, which is why I don't think they should be thinking about the major record.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I really like how playing on fast surfaces is being equated with being a "complete" player. No, playing on fast surfaces means you can play on fast surfaces. How complete are Roger and Novak with their combined 2 French Open titles, by the same token?

The bias in how people view these things is incredible.

 

[Front242]

I really like how playing on fast surfaces is being equated with being a "complete" player. No, playing on fast surfaces means you can play on fast surfaces. How complete are Roger and Novak with their combined 2 French Open titles, by the same token?

The bias in how people view these things is incredible.

In fairness they are both more complete when you think of indoors titles. I'd imagine both Nadal and Djokovic would also get whooped more often than not by Federer if we still had carpet tournaments.

The slowing of the surfaces has greatly aided both Nadal and Djokovic and hurt Federer, but by way of a hypothetical scenario, imagine if they speeded up Roland Garros to a cross between the faster AO and a much lower bounce. How do you think Nadal would like that? He certainly wouldn't be anywhere near as dominant if the bounce killed his topspin and the court was way faster. Big servers and aggressive players would rush him and he couldn't rally anywhere near as much and winners would be flying past him all day and day-lee. That's the way it should be btw at the USO also but it's dog slow now and has greatly benefitted his game.

 

[Jelenafan]

In fairness they are both more complete when you think of indoors titles. I'd imagine both Nadal and Djokovic would also get whooped more often than not by Federer if we still had carpet tournaments.

The slowing of the surfaces has greatly aided both Nadal and Djokovic and hurt Federer, but by way of a hypothetical scenario, imagine if they speeded up Roland Garros to a cross between the faster AO and a much lower bounce. How do you think Nadal would like that? He certainly wouldn't be anywhere near as dominant if the bounce killed his topspin and the court was way faster. Big servers and aggressive players would rush him and he couldn't rally anywhere near as much and winners would be flying past him all day and day-lee.

But indoor carpet is no longer a major playing surface nor is red clay speeded up so what’s your point other than to “hypothetically” give the Ancient One more Majors and take away from Rafa.

There are many hypothetical situations where the Drooling One could have 19, 18, 17, 16 etc Majors, but again what’s the point?

Back in the real world, They stand at 19 versus 20 Majors and Methuselah has played 20 more Majors than Rafa. So Hospice Care boy has had more chances to add to his tally, so all this talk of slower surfaces is a way to rationalize/compensate the grey haired athlete not having a larger lead at the twilight of his career.

 

[Front242]

But indoor carpet is no longer a major playing surface nor is red clay speeded up so what’s your point other than to “hypothetically” give the Ancient One more Majors and take away from Rafa.

There are many hypothetical situations where the Drooling One could have 19, 18, 17, 16 etc Majors, but again what’s the point?

Back in the real world, They stand at 19 versus 20 Majors and Methuselah has played 20 more Majors than Rafa. So Hospice Care boy has had more chances to add to his tally, so all this talk of slower surfaces is a way to rationalize/compensate the grey haired athlete not having a larger lead at the twilight of his career.

Hospice boy has been screwed over and island boy has been greatly helped and you know it. The slowing of the surfaces is a fact so if you want to leave out hypotheticals by all means do but leave the facts and the facts are the ATP with their stupid homogenization of surfaces have lessened the sport with their endless rallies and making it more about fitness than shot making. Imagine for example facing Medvedev on a much faster court. Whole different ball game and the USO used to be way, way faster.

Btw, we would most likely also have less injured players on tour with shorter matches so the ATP really need to do something. The endless rallying and being on court longer than needed by way of it being way too hard to hit winners on slow courts is causing injuries.

 

[atttomole]

I really like how playing on fast surfaces is being equated with being a "complete" player. No, playing on fast surfaces means you can play on fast surfaces. How complete are Roger and Novak with their combined 2 French Open titles, by the same token?

The bias in how people view these things is incredible.

I didn't say playing on fast surfaces only, but transitioning from one slam to another that plays very differently. There is no logic in saying that playing on fast surfaces equates to being complete. That is why I mentioned surface variety.

 

[atttomole]

But indoor carpet is no longer a major playing surface nor is red clay speeded up so what’s your point other than to “hypothetically” give the Ancient One more Majors and take away from Rafa.

There are many hypothetical situations where the Drooling One could have 19, 18, 17, 16 etc Majors, but again what’s the point?

Back in the real world, They stand at 19 versus 20 Majors and Methuselah has played 20 more Majors than Rafa. So Hospice Care boy has had more chances to add to his tally, so all this talk of slower surfaces is a way to rationalize/compensate the grey haired athlete not having a larger lead at the twilight of his career.

The tireless one likes slow surfaces. That is why he has 12 FO's. And you know why he overachieved at Wimbledon and the US Open. No hypotheticals here. With fast surfaces, the tireless one has no Wimbledon and most likely no US Open.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Keep making excuses fedfans but we will be there to comfort you just like Rafa taught us

 

[backhandslapper]

Trivia:

Nadal is the first and so far the only man in the history of tennis whose major singles total (19) has at least equaled his age at the time of winning the first one (19).

It's more common among women (Court, Williams, Graff), but still pretty rare.

Roger needs one more, Novak 5.