Will Novak pass Federer?

[The_Grand_Slam]

Obviously we can see it's what you wish to happen....whatever, what a obsession with Nadal you have but if you are dreaming with another win of Federer in Wimbledon then..... wake up!

Grow up!

 

[lob]

I have never seen tennis as beautiful as what I've seen from Federer. I have not seen tennis played as uniquely and terrifyingly as Rafa. And I have not seen tennis played as faultlessly as from Novak. ... Take your pick!

^This

 

[Ricardo]

Lol! You mean you thought that. Please don't assume that your views are in the consensus. For the record I have always thought that Novak like Roger has dominated the field in a consistent fashion. Kudos to him for that. But it remains a numbers game. He's not there yet, but for sure he could get there. If we make this a qualitative rather than quantitative exercise I have no problem with that. In my opinion, I have never seen tennis as beautiful as what I've seen from Federer. I have not seen tennis played as uniquely and terrifyingly as Rafa. And I have not seen tennis played as faultlessly as from Novak. Folks can talk about Laver if they want, but the reality is we all know given his size that he wouldn't have been up to it against these 3 titans. These are the ones. Take your pick!

Actually we don’t know that about Laver, it’s your personal opinion please don’t assume ‘we’ all agree with that. I also don’t agree with that Novak’s tennis is even close to faultless, as it’s simply a product of current condition where playing ‘lockdown’ is the effective way to win. His tennis does not wow a lot of people, his fans excepted of course, but the games of truly offensive players do.

 

[Carol]

Grow up!

What about you?

 

[Federberg]

Actually we don’t know that about Laver, it’s your personal opinion please don’t assume ‘we’ all agree with that. I also don’t agree with that Novak’s tennis is even close to faultless, as it’s simply a product of current condition where playing ‘lockdown’ is the effective way to win. His tennis does not wow a lot of people, his fans excepted of course, but the games of truly offensive players do.

It constantly amuses me how you drop in with your opinions that seem so authoritative and then disappear again. I'm sure in your mind you think it's impactful. Not so much sonny boy. I even doubt that you really believe that a 5ft 8in Rod Laver would get much purchase against these 3 fellas. But you simply couldn't help yourself. Credit to you for being an equal opportunity antagonist. But frankly I disagree on that point. I do however agree that Novak is a creature of the current environment. Whether he would translate so well in other eras, colour me sceptical. Of the 3, only Federer translates effectively. Novak and Rafa would still be great under different circumstances, but this era, and the way surfaces are accentuate their particular skill sets for sure

 

[El Dude]

It constantly amuses me how you drop in with your opinions that seem so authoritative and then disappear again. I'm sure in your mind you think it's impactful. Not so much sonny boy. I even doubt that you really believe that a 5ft 8in Rod Laver would get much purchase against these 3 fellas. But you simply couldn't help yourself. Credit to you for being an equal opportunity antagonist. But frankly I disagree on that point. I do however agree that Novak is a creature of the current environment. Whether he would translate so well in other eras, colour me sceptical. Of the 3, only Federer translates effectively. Novak and Rafa would still be great under different circumstances, but this era, and the way surfaces are accentuate their particular skill sets for sure

It is interesting to consider how the three would translate to different eras. I agree that Roger would translate very well. In truth, in the faster surfaces of past decades he might even be more dominant. I've often thought that part of what makes him such an amazing and alluring player is that in some sense he bridges two eras: he's a throwback to the 80s-90s, but also the first of a new era of baseliners. He could have hung with Edberg, McEnroe and Sampras in their primes and not needed to adjust his game too much, but also stuck around to compete with Rafa and Novak.

If we throw Rafa or Novak back in time to the 80s or early 90s, I'm not sure they'd be quite as successful - both because of the style of play, but mostly because of the courts and their speeds.

Moxie will get upset for me saying this, but I think Rafa would suffer in the faster era. He'd dominate clay and slow hards anywhere and any when, but fast grass, hards, or carpet? I'm not sure he'd have won Wimbledon in older eras.

Novak might lose a little overall and still be great, but not as great. His greatest strength is his ability to get to anything, and I think this would suffer in a faster, more heavily serve and volley era.

Just speculating, though - who knows, really.

 

[Federberg]

It is interesting to consider how the three would translate to different eras. I agree that Roger would translate very well. In truth, in the faster surfaces of past decades he might even be more dominant. I've often thought that part of what makes him such an amazing and alluring player is that in some sense he bridges two eras: he's a throwback to the 80s-90s, but also the first of a new era of baseliners. He could have hung with Edberg, McEnroe and Sampras in their primes and not needed to adjust his game too much, but also stuck around to compete with Rafa and Novak.

If we throw Rafa or Novak back in time to the 80s or early 90s, I'm not sure they'd be quite as successful - both because of the style of play, but mostly because of the courts and their speeds.

Moxie will get upset for me saying this, but I think Rafa would suffer in the faster era. He'd dominate clay and slow hards anywhere and any when, but fast grass, hards, or carpet? I'm not sure he'd have won Wimbledon in older eras.

Novak might lose a little overall and still be great, but not as great. His greatest strength is his ability to get to anything, and I think this would suffer in a faster, more heavily serve and volley era.

Just speculating, though - who knows, really.

I actually think it's more than that. The sort of attritional tennis both play is dependent on being able to sustain clean strokes in rallies. In past eras where the frames of racquets were much much smaller, the risk of framing shots mid-rally would be that much higher. Both would be forced to develop games that would be much less dependent on long rallies. Federer is naturally pre-disposed to that of course, Rafa and Novak would have to do something that isn't natural them

 

[El Dude]

I actually think it's more than that. The sort of attritional tennis both play is dependent on being able to sustain clean strokes in rallies. In past eras where the frames of racquets were much much smaller, the risk of framing shots mid-rally would be that much higher. Both would be forced to develop games that would be much less dependent on long rallies. Federer is naturally pre-disposed to that of course, Rafa and Novak would have to do something that isn't natural them

Good point, which supports my view that Roger is a hybrid of old and new and thus adaptable to either.

For some reason the image of Rafa with a wooden racket is comical.

 

[mrzz]

I think that it is harder than we think this business of translating player's abilities to different eras. If we don't shift too much in time, OK, but I guess even in the eighties we cannot say much. The feel of racket/string/balls were too different. I guess Federer would have the edge, but...

The strings back then were able to generate much, much less spin. So one really had to control much more the stroke. Nowadays even an amateur player can hit as hard as he can with his eyes closed and generally the ball will land in. A heavy load of topspin and all balls tilt their trajectories downward. It is completely different with old racquets. That's the main reason old matches feel so slow, it is not that those folks had weak arms and wrists... so this would be the first new reality that everyone would have to adapt, and we can only guess how they would fare.

I think a guy like Nadal would have problems, given the huge amount of energy he transfers to the ball. I do not think that it is remotely possible to do that on old racquets. But this does not mean that he would not be able to find a completely different solution. Nadal's game is full of unorthodox solutions, from his forehand motion to his volley technique. But I still think he would struggle... on the other hand, some aspects of his game would translate nicely: the running forehand and, specially, his passing shots. Good passing shots are obviously important in a S&V environment. Also, he likes to have time to prepare his ground strokes, he would have it. The equation is not simple.

The main reason I think Federer would adapt better is not on his strokes, but his ability attack the net in a fluid fashion. He does not rush his strokes to follow them to the net, like a lot of players do, they simply flow. He naturally follows his drop shots to the net. In other words, he already does well on the basics aspects of 80's game.

As for Djokovic... I would like to see how his consistency would translate. One thing is for sure, he could trade back hand slices all day long...

 

[El Dude]

^Well said. All players grow within the context they are in and great players adapt. If Rafa had played 30 years ago he would have been a very different player, but talent is talent and presumably it would have found a way.

Laver is a bit trickier because he's very small compared to today's standards. Maybe he would have been more like a better version of Lleyton Hewitt.

In the end, though, we can only judge players within the context they played, and Laver was as dominant in his own era as any player in tennis history, thus a bonafide GOAT candidate.

 

[Moxie]

I like @mrzz's post a lot. This is what I was going to say about very talented players/athletes adapting to their circumstances. I have no problem saying that Roger would have been suited to basically any era. He's very much part throwback/part modern era. It's more complicated to understand what Nadal and Djokovic would have been like, if they'd developed in completely different circumstances. Beyond what we see them do that takes advantage of newer technologies, they are fantastic athletes, with amazing competitive instincts. This is always going to go a long way. It's worth thinking of the comparisons between Borg and Nadal. Both amongst the best athletes ever to play the game. Borg was well-capable of long, long rallies on clay, so that meant he kept the ball in the sweet spot. And he translated his game to grass. There are a lot of commies who say that Nadal off-clay does better on faster surfaces. I don't think carpet would have been his specialty in any universe, but there is plenty of reason to think that he'd have adapted a game to the era he played in. @El Dude, you may think that the idea of him playing with a wooden racquet is "comical," but I personally think he'd still have made a great weapon out of it.

 

[El Dude]

@Moxie, after consideration I think the reason Rafa would look comical with a wooden racket is because he somehow seems larger than life for it - he is a rather impressive specimen, after all - far moreso than Roger or Novak, at least aesthetically (all three are amazing athletes, but Rafa is sexiest . A wood racket would look like a child's toy. So not a slight at all; the opposite, if anything.

 

[tented]

@Moxie, after consideration I think the reason Rafa would look comical with a wooden racket is because he somehow seems larger than life for it - he is a rather impressive specimen, after all - far moreso than Roger or Novak, at least aesthetically (all three are amazing athletes, but Rafa is sexiest . A wood racket would look like a child's toy. So not a slight at all; the opposite, if anything.

A proposal for a charity exhibition: Borg and McEnroe play each other, using Rafa and Roger’s racquets, and vice versa. Maybe doubles, too.

 

[mrzz]

so that meant he kept the ball in the sweet spot

This. This was really a big thing back then and one that surely matters less today. We have all seen the impact that a bigger frame made on Federer. Now put everyone with a tiny little wooden racquet with a sweet spot as large as your thumb. Yeah, exactly.

 

[MikeOne]

The basic game of Novak is baseline play. It may not be just counterpunching. It may be aggressive baseline play. He may be able to turn defense into offense. But, it surely cannot be called a fundamentally attacking style. Such a style will be taking its toll over a period. It cannot lost forever.
That is the primary logic behind my vote, not to mention the sound analysis mentioned in the OP of "Will Rafa pass Fed?" thread.

Novak needs 5 sets to put Simon to bed, He needs 36 shots to win a point against Andy. This kind of stuff will not be sustainable in the long run.

but you talk about it as if Novak is a youngster and we still don't know if he can sustain his level in long run. There is already some evidence that he can sustain his level, he has been a pro for 13 years? and started winning slams in 2008, it's 2019 now. So there is evidence to suggest he can sustain this for years to come.

It seems he has only suffered one major injury in his entire career, which by 31, seems reasonable. Federer, who people say has a game built for longevity has had his fair share of back problems, some injuries forced him to step away for a while. So i think Novak has done fairly well... better than Nadal, who has had more issues over the years.

Novak's game isn't all defense, which helps him but i also think his build helps him. He's 6'2 or 6'3 and listed at 175lbs... he's very light and strong pound for pound. Nadal is listed at 6'1, 190 lbs and Federer 6'1 185 lbs. Murray was also heavier... i think this will help Novak as he doesn't have that much weight to carry..

 

[tented]

Murray was also heavier... i think this will help Novak as he doesn't have that much weight to carry..

The ATP site lists Murray as 6’3”, 181 lbs.

 

[MikeOne]

The ATP site lists Murray as 6’3”, 181 lbs.

Djokovic is smaller boned, more slender... i've seen them in person... Murray also had a more defensive game than Novak.

 

[Mgandohermano1991]

We have a thread titled "Will Rafa Pass Federer"? Since that question seems to be settled, the burning question now appears to be will Novak surpass Federer? Of course, before passing Federer, he must pass Rafa; but, let us not labor the obvious.

I posted my thoughts about this here . But, nehemeth pointed out that it may be a wrong thread for it. So, I created this thread. The floor is yours, ladies and gentlemen.

Yes of course he can pass federer. Just like basketball KD finally beat lebron in the finals twice. With great effort and more practice you can beat anyone.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I apologize to Federer fans especially after the tough loss but I am curious to see on what you guys think about this question?

I still personally think Djokovic will not pass Federer just because the amount of mental pressure (and in the case today physical too) to win 5 more slams at 32 and older.

Also as long as Federer is playing, he always have a chance to win one more slam especially at Wimbledon.

 

[Fiero425]

I apologize to Federer fans especially after the tough loss but I am curious to see on what you guys think about this question?

I still personally think Djokovic will not pass Federer just because the amount of mental pressure (and in the case today physical too) to win 5 more slams at 32 and older.

Also as long as Federer is playing, he always have a chance to win one more slam especially at Wimbledon.

You seem to forget, both Fed & Nole have won 4 majors after their 32nd birthday! Advantage Nole since it took Fed to 37 to get there!