Will Novak pass Federer?

[Fiero425]

So many of us had doubts whether any new players will rise up. But this week both Thiem and Fritz rose up. Of course, they need to prove that they can back it up before any of us can get our hopes high. Assuming they do, this will be a sudden development which was not seen by many, except for keen observers.

Of course, I am not saying they are ready to beat Novak right now. But, the point is challengers will keep coming from some dark corner when you least expect it. That is the norm of the world.

People are more restrained because we've all been kicked in the butt thinking the next gen. was going to make headway and at least contend at Masters & majors! With rare exceptions, it just hasn't happened! They can't even eliminate the "also-rans" of the previous era in Ferrer, Cilic, & Berdych; still going strong and winning 500's! How many have each of us anointed the next great player? With me it was with Dimitrov; all that talent & @ this time a total waste of space! I'm so done with the guy after a loss to Murray with a huge lead and multiple MP's! :cover - :ras:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Another thread that needs a bump.

 

[nehmeth]

Another thread that needs a bump.

Brave soul. :celeb:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Another thread that needs a bump.

Brave soul. :celeb:

It is a legitimate question. Even if I don't bump this thread up, it will be debated. Might as well have all the thoughts in one place. :dodgy:

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I don't know I am still on the fence about this. It will depend on how he finishes his year. If he can do the unthinkable and win the last two and a Calendar Slam, then I think it is well within his reach. I think he needs to win at least 1 more this year and at least 3 next year and he can. I think he is a few stats short here and there anyway of number of total slams being irrelevant. If he can end his career with at least 15-17, and he continues racking up other stats like YE #1, weeks at number 1, complete control of masters title numbers, etc. it won't matter if he goes past Fed. He certainly can though and winning RG finally will definitely make him a more relaxed and even more dangerous than he already is player.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In view of the Nole Slam completed today, I think Novak will pass Federer (as a GOAT candidate) even if he ties Federer.

Also, I personally am willing to give one slam discount if Novak can complete CYGS. I know some others oppose this.

Novak is obviously the favorite for each and every one of the next four major events. Old folks are banged up and New folks have green horns. It almost looks like no one can beat Novak. The only hope at this time is that, out of sheer boredom of winning, Novak messes up here and there. :cover

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think he could see nerves if he has the possibility of a Calendar Slam, but I think overall he got the one he wanted, so his confidence will be hard to chip away.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

ATP article on how Novak is closing in on Roger . Novak is just one behind in Roger in "Big Titles" won. More importantly his strike rate is the highest among all players, current and past, as he wins one big title for every 3.15 big events he plays in.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

ATP article on how Novak is closing in on Roger . Novak is just one behind in Roger in "Big Titles" won. More importantly his strike rate is the highest among all players, current and past, as he wins one big title for every 3.15 big events he plays in.

All the respect to Novak and the list ATP put together, but my one beef there is that even if there was only one grass 1000 tournament, the numbers would be drastically different. Nole and Rafa have multiple 1000 tournaments on their best surfaces, Roger has none.

 

[Riotbeard]

ATP article on how Novak is closing in on Roger . Novak is just one behind in Roger in "Big Titles" won. More importantly his strike rate is the highest among all players, current and past, as he wins one big title for every 3.15 big events he plays in.

All the respect to Novak and the list ATP put together, but my one beef there is that even if there was only one grass 1000 tournament, the numbers would be drastically different. Nole and Rafa have multiple 1000 tournaments on their best surfaces, Roger has none.

At 9 hardcourt slams, 6 wtfs, and 20 hardcourt masters titles, its tough though to argue that federer hasn't benefited from the wealth of hardcourt tournaments just as much as Novak. At the age of 29, Federer had more hardcourt slams than Novak. To date, he only has two less hardcourt masters and one more WTF, meaning they have an equal amount of big titles on hardcourts. It's hard to boohoo too much about their not being more grass masters (of which in the last five years, it is hard to argue would not also add to Novak's trophy cabinet).

I think Federer at his peak was almost as good (if not just as good) on hardcourts as he was on grass (the numbers definitely favor this). Federer is more behind in terms of masters on clay courts (7 for Novak compared to 4 (I think) for Fed).

I do think in his dotage Fed would benefit specifically from more grass courts, as that surface clearly suits his current game heavily.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

ATP article on how Novak is closing in on Roger . Novak is just one behind in Roger in "Big Titles" won. More importantly his strike rate is the highest among all players, current and past, as he wins one big title for every 3.15 big events he plays in.

All the respect to Novak and the list ATP put together, but my one beef there is that even if there was only one grass 1000 tournament, the numbers would be drastically different. Nole and Rafa have multiple 1000 tournaments on their best surfaces, Roger has none.

At 9 hardcourt slams, 6 wtfs, and 20 hardcourt masters titles, its tough though to argue that federer hasn't benefited from the wealth of hardcourt tournaments just as much as Novak. At the age of 29, Federer had more hardcourt slams than Novak. To date, he only has two less hardcourt masters and one more WTF, meaning they have an equal amount of big titles on hardcourts. It's hard to boohoo too much about their not being more grass masters (of which in the last five years, it is hard to argue would not also add to Novak's trophy cabinet).

I think Federer at his peak was almost as good (if not just as good) on hardcourts as he was on grass (the numbers definitely favor this). Federer is more behind in terms of masters on clay courts (7 for Novak compared to 4 (I think) for Fed).

I do think in his dotage Fed would benefit specifically from more grass courts, as that surface clearly suits his current game heavily.

But I am not asking for more grass masters, I am only asking for ONE ! None exists! Roger is an amazing player on all surfaces but he is (or was) simply a different animal on grass. Grass is a specialty surface, just like clay. Roger has 8 Halle titles and 7 Wimbledon titles. It isn't far fetched to say Roger could have won more than a couple masters titles if there was one played on grass. Rafa has three clay 1000s to play on, his best surface , every year !uzzled

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In the 17 years that he is on the circuit, it is not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have won a non-existent grass masters at least 10 times.

 

[Riotbeard]

All the respect to Novak and the list ATP put together, but my one beef there is that even if there was only one grass 1000 tournament, the numbers would be drastically different. Nole and Rafa have multiple 1000 tournaments on their best surfaces, Roger has none.

At 9 hardcourt slams, 6 wtfs, and 20 hardcourt masters titles, its tough though to argue that federer hasn't benefited from the wealth of hardcourt tournaments just as much as Novak. At the age of 29, Federer had more hardcourt slams than Novak. To date, he only has two less hardcourt masters and one more WTF, meaning they have an equal amount of big titles on hardcourts. It's hard to boohoo too much about their not being more grass masters (of which in the last five years, it is hard to argue would not also add to Novak's trophy cabinet).

I think Federer at his peak was almost as good (if not just as good) on hardcourts as he was on grass (the numbers definitely favor this). Federer is more behind in terms of masters on clay courts (7 for Novak compared to 4 (I think) for Fed).

I do think in his dotage Fed would benefit specifically from more grass courts, as that surface clearly suits his current game heavily.

But I am not asking for more grass masters, I am only asking for ONE ! None exists! Roger is an amazing player on all surfaces but he is (or was) simply a different animal on grass. Grass is a specialty surface, just like clay. Roger has 8 Halle titles and 7 Wimbledon titles. It isn't far fetched to say Roger could have won more than a couple masters titles if there was one played on grass. Rafa has three clay 1000s to play on, his best surface , every year !uzzled

I support more grass tournaments! In this context though, it's hard to say Federer is a victim of certain types of courts, when he has been as successful on hard courts as an player in history.

 

[herios]

In the 17 years that he is on the circuit, it is not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have won a non-existent grass masters at least 10 times.

:laydownlaughinguzzled

Sure.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

In the 17 years that he is on the circuit, it is not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have won a non-existent grass masters at least 10 times.

:laydownlaughinguzzled

Sure.

..and that is a non existent one ! Imagine if one existed ! :snicker

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I support more grass tournaments! In this context though, it's hard to say Federer is a victim of certain types of courts, when he has been as successful on hard courts as an player in history.

I would never say Roger is a victim , no way. Just mentioning a very simple fact and wishing it was different. I mean , look at Roger's grass court resume. His winning percentage. Would he benefit from a grass masters or not? That is the question. Sure it is a hypothetical , but most would say yes.

 

[nehmeth]

In the 17 years that he is on the circuit, it is not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have won a non-existent grass masters at least 10 times.

Just think what he would have done when three of the majors were played on faster grass. Or imagine how many slams Rafa would have had when the USO was played on the green clay. :angel:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

In the 17 years that he is on the circuit, it is not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have won a non-existent grass masters at least 10 times.

Just think what he would have done when three of the majors were played on faster grass. Or imagine how many slams Rafa would have had when the USO was played on the green clay. :angel:

Come on guys...There is a slam on every surface. There is at least a couple of masters 1000 tournaments played on the same surface leading up to that slam. There is NO grass masters leading up to Wimbledon. I swear I am not making it up !

 

[nehmeth]

Murat, how many years and on how many boards have we been together? You know I am in complete agreement with you that there should be at least one grass Masters. Because of the short turn around from RG to SW19, they never did it. They would also have to create a venue big enough to be a 1000 tournament. It needs to happen.

 

[isabelle]

I support more grass tournaments! In this context though, it's hard to say Federer is a victim of certain types of courts, when he has been as successful on hard courts as an player in history.

I would never say Roger is a victim , no way. Just mentioning a very simple fact and wishing it was different. I mean , look at Roger's grass court resume. His winning percentage. Would he benefit from a grass masters or not? That is the question. Sure it is a hypothetical , but most would say yes.

same for Nadal ? if Masters was played on clay, he would have won a lot ??? he's unlucky because Masters is played on hardcourt ??? all players are "unlucky", some surfaces suit them better or not but I don't think there's one guy luckier than another