Will Novak pass Rafa?

[brokenshoelace]

OK. Now that the gap has widened, what do folks think about this question?

At least at the moment, Novak is a contender in all the majors (whether or not he actually wins them). The
same cannot be said of Ralph.

So, despite the gap widening I think Novak can indeed pass Ralph barring unforeseen circumstances
such as Nole running into some tootsie.

Wait, why is Nadal not a contender in all the majors? Am I missing something here?

EDIT: Never mind quoted this before reading the rest of the thread.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And the field is catching up.

Honestly I don't see it. The big 3's results have everything to do with how they're playing and very little to do with how the field is playing. Winning the last 10 slams proves as much, especially with no promising youngsters except for maybe Tsitsipas.

 

[DarthFed]

Honestly I don't see it. The big 3's results have everything to do with how they're playing and very little to do with how the field is playing. Winning the last 10 slams proves as much, especially with no promising youngsters except for maybe Tsitsipas.

Agreed and that's a huge factor. The Next Gen has shown nothing so far. And Thiem is only good on one surface and even on that one he isn't great in the least.

 

[DarthFed]

That 2013-16 streak for Roger really hurt. Crazy to think that in 2007 and again in 2009 he was +9 on Rafa; in 2010 he was +15 on Novak!

By Decade:
2000s - Roger 15, Rafa 6, Novak 1
2010s - Novak 14+, Rafa 12+, Roger 5+

I think the gap will continue to narrow, through, and all three will finish in the 20-22 range. I could see (and kind of like) a scenario where they all finish with the same number. 21? Of course if Fedal are both retired with 21 and Novak is stilll plugging along, he will give it his all to get to 22. But if history has any poetry to it, he won't manage and they all finish with 21. Like so....

Roger wins #21 this year or next, then has a farewell tour in 2021, retiring at Basel at the ripe old age of 40. Let's say Rafa wins two more in 2019-20, but struggles through injury in 2021 but then makes one more surge to win #21 at 2022 RG at age 36, retiring while hoisting his trophy. Meanwhile Novak is catching up, but slowly losing ground to NextGenners. He catches Fedal in 2023 with #21, and is determined to get #22 but goes Slamless in 2024 and 2025 and then calls it quits at age 38, also with 21.

I'd call it the lost AO 2010- pre AO2017 that will end up killing Roger's career. He was pretty terrible, irrelevant through most of it, which is why I say he aged poorly. All together Roger has only 5 majors since age 28. Nadal has same total and Djokovic has 7

 

[monfed]

I'd call it the lost AO 2010- pre AO2017 that will end up killing Roger's career. He was pretty terrible, irrelevant through most of it, which is why I say he aged poorly. All together Roger has only 5 majors since age 28. Nadal has same total and Djokovic has 7

He hasn't aged poorly. He had dull and faker chasing him relentlessly, plus surface slowdown plus bad luck(USO 14). Nobody is chasing dull or faker so they're vulturing slams easily and surface slowdown only benefits them.

 

[Moxie]

Honestly I don't see it. The big 3's results have everything to do with how they're playing and very little to do with how the field is playing. Winning the last 10 slams proves as much, especially with no promising youngsters except for maybe Tsitsipas.

I think this is short-sighted, though. Yes, for now, it's about what the Big 3 are doing, and everyone else just flails about. But, at the risk of stating the obvious, they get older, and the youngsters round into form. I do not think that there is a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic amongst them, but the risk of upset becomes greater, and it will get harder to win Majors...and I think pretty soon. You mentioned, whether on this thread, or another, that it's a joke to talk about draws w/re: to Nadal at RG, as it has been to talk about the draws of the Big Boys in most tournaments, especially Majors, for a long time now. Upsets have been pretty rare, and at least one of them usually prevails. It has been kind of a ridiculous to complain about draws, when we basically knew where the SFs/Fs would land. I think that's what is about to change. Not that there's a plethora of world-beaters in the wings, but that there is a rising tide of better players, with big ambitions and less fear of the big guys. I'm not saying one player is going to take over the ATP...just that upset is going to be more possible.

 

[Jelenafan]

He hasn't aged poorly. He had dull and faker chasing him relentlessly, plus surface slowdown plus bad luck(USO 14). Nobody is chasing dull or faker so they're vulturing slams easily and surface slowdown only benefits them.

You seem pissed that they didn't lay down and let Roger win more. Them the breaks. Hopefully they can "vulture" some more Slams.. rolling eyeballs....

 

[El Dude]

He hasn't aged poorly. He had dull and faker chasing him relentlessly, plus surface slowdown plus bad luck(USO 14). Nobody is chasing dull or faker so they're vulturing slams easily and surface slowdown only benefits them.

If you say that Rafa and Novak have been vulturing over the last few years, what was Roger doing in his peak years? He faced some pretty mediocre (relatively speakinng) finalists in Slams: Baghdatis, Gonzalez, etc.

That said, I do agree with you that in one way Roger has had it harder in that he's had two similarly great younger players on his heels, while Rafa and Novak have had...del Potro? Cilic? Dimitrov?!

 

[DarthFed]

If you say that Rafa and Novak have been vulturing over the last few years, what was Roger doing in his peak years? He faced some pretty mediocre (relatively speakinng) finalists in Slams: Baghdatis, Gonzalez, etc.

That said, I do agree with you that in one way Roger has had it harder in that he's had two similarly great younger players on his heels, while Rafa and Novak have had...del Potro? Cilic? Dimitrov?!

The competition argument turned quickly on its face. I didn't like it when Nadal and Djokovic fans tried to use that card and I don't care for it now with Federer. Bottom line is all 3 of those guys made a lot of the recent situation which is undeniably a pretty weak field that has progressively gotten worse. Roger's problem will end up being that prolonged weak period of play with 1 major in 7 years. That's what may end up costing the legacy.

 

[Moxie]

The thing your graph doesn't show is their relative ages at various milestones of Majors. Not that they're especially telling but:

Fed reached his 18th at 35 years, while Nadal reached his 18th at 33 years.

Nadal reached his 14th at 28 years. Barely. Roger at 27, minus just a few months. Nadal reached his 14th at 28 years. Djokovic reached his 14th, at 31, but his 15th at 31, also, which was a few months younger than Nadal. They are kind of running neck and neck.

 

[El Dude]

The competition argument turned quickly on its face. I didn't like it when Nadal and Djokovic fans tried to use that card and I don't care for it now with Federer. Bottom line is all 3 of those guys made a lot of the recent situation which is undeniably a pretty weak field that has progressively gotten worse. Roger's problem will end up being that prolonged weak period of play with 1 major in 7 years. That's what may end up costing the legacy.

Yet each of the three has also won Slams with impossibly difficult routes to the title. I still think that Roger's 2017 AO is his most amazing feat - both because of his age, lay-off, and the route he took to win the title, including three five-setters.

You and I disagree on legacy. I mean, sure, if you want Roger to be the singular GOAT, then he would have needed to win two or three more Slams during that period. But I think you're eventually going to have to accept that ten years from now we're probably going to look back at a "Three-headed GOAT." I just don't see any of the three doing what they'd have to do to pull far enough ahead to make their singular GOATness undeniable.

Roger would probably have to win 2-3 more Slams. Novak would have to surpass Roger in weeks at #1 (possible, even likely) and Slam count (unlikely but possible). Rafa would also have to surpass the other in Slam counts, and maybe have more weeks at #1 and win a World Tour Finals.

The Slam lead is not enough. Roger is the default GOAT right now because he has the Slam lead and the most weeks at #1 and 101 titles. If he maintains all three, even by a hair, I think he can retain his crown, but it will still be arguable. Similarly with Rafa and Novak.

 

[El Dude]

The thing your graph doesn't show is their relative ages at various milestones of Majors. Not that they're especially telling but:

Fed reached his 18th at 35 years, while Nadal reached his 18th at 33 years.

Nadal reached his 14th at 28 years. Barely. Roger at 27, minus just a few months. Nadal reached his 14th at 28 years. Djokovic reached his 14th, at 31, but his 15th at 31, also, which was a few months younger than Nadal. They are kind of running neck and neck.

Funny you should say that. I made a chart that did just that, but decided to post this one, mostly because I think age is somewhat relative and we don't know how Rafa and Novak will age. Rafa in particular has already far out-done expectations, but will it last? Roger is forging new territory and there's no certainty that Rafa or Novak will be able to do what he's done, especially given the fact that the field should be stronger in 2-3 years.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Yet each of the three has also won Slams with impossibly difficult routes to the title. I still think that Roger's 2017 AO is his most amazing feat - both because of his age, lay-off, and the route he took to win the title, including three five-setters.

You and I disagree on legacy. I mean, sure, if you want Roger to be the singular GOAT, then he would have needed to win two or three more Slams during that period. But I think you're eventually going to have to accept that ten years from now we're probably going to look back at a "Three-headed GOAT." I just don't see any of the three doing what they'd have to do to pull far enough ahead to make their singular GOATness undeniable.

Roger would probably have to win 2-3 more Slams. Novak would have to surpass Roger in weeks at #1 (possible, even likely) and Slam count (unlikely but possible). Rafa would also have to surpass the other in Slam counts, and maybe have more weeks at #1 and win a World Tour Finals.

The Slam lead is not enough. Roger is the default GOAT right now because he has the Slam lead and the most weeks at #1 and 101 titles. If he maintains all three, even by a hair, I think he can retain his crown, but it will still be arguable. Similarly with Rafa and Novak.

Federer also has to beat Rafa at RG (like Rafa did at Wimbledon) or at least improve his 3-10 deficit in their slam meetings. Novak and Fed also need to achieve their ultimate dream of winning the Olympics Gold. Anyway the only record that will never be beaten is the 12 RGs (and only 2 losses!), everything else will eventually be surpassed (slam count, weeks at #1, etc.). Some people think that the RG count is a negative when it’s actually the most positive, impressive & immortal record. Compared to Rafa at RG nobody can be considered “great”.

 

[El Dude]

Federer also has to beat Rafa at RG (like Rafa did at Wimbledon) or at least improve his 3-10 deficit in their slam meetings. Novak and Fed also need to achieve their ultimate dream of winning the Olympics Gold. Anyway the only record that will never be beaten is the 12 RGs (and only 2 losses!), everything else will eventually be surpassed (slam count, weeks at #1, etc.). Some people think that the RG count is a negative when it’s actually the most positive, impressive & immortal record. Compared to Rafa at RG nobody can be considered “great”.

Actually, no - especially about Olympics Gold. It is a nice frill but not at all necessary for GOATdom. And no player can be exempt from GOATness by virtue of a single match-up. Yes, Rafa's edge over Roger diminishes Roger's overall GOATness, but it doesn't negate it.

I am continually amazed at how some fans don't even try to be objective and spin everything to make their guy look better. At least make an attempt.

 

[Moxie]

If you say that Rafa and Novak have been vulturing over the last few years, what was Roger doing in his peak years? He faced some pretty mediocre (relatively speakinng) finalists in Slams: Baghdatis, Gonzalez, etc.

That said, I do agree with you that in one way Roger has had it harder in that he's had two similarly great younger players on his heels, while Rafa and Novak have had...del Potro? Cilic? Dimitrov?!

Don't be coy. They've had each other, and Federer, and Wawrinka seemed to miss the cut, in your assessment.

 

[El Dude]

Don't be coy. They've had each other, and Federer, and Wawrinka seemed to miss the cut, in your assessment.

Coy? How am I being coy? I just defended Rafa and Novak "vulturing" and pointed out the ways in which Roger had it easier than them, but you seem to be unable to see the ways that they had it easier than Roger.

You're missing the point about younger players. Roger is of an older generation and Stan of the same generation. Roger had to deal with not only Novak and Rafa, but an overall very strong younger generation of players. Novak and Rafa have had a stronger peer generation than Roger (mainly because of each other), but a much weaker younger generation. There are no greats or even borderline greats among Lost Gen or even the first half of Next Gen (so far, at least).

 

[Moxie]

Coy? How am I being coy? I just defended Rafa and Novak "vulturing" and pointed out the ways in which Roger had it easier than them, but you seem to be unable to see the ways that they had it easier than Roger.

You're missing the point about younger players. Roger is of an older generation and Stan of the same generation. Roger had to deal with not only Novak and Rafa, but an overall very strong younger generation of players. Novak and Rafa have had a stronger peer generation than Roger (mainly because of each other), but a much weaker younger generation. There are no greats or even borderline greats among Lost Gen or even the first half of Next Gen (so far, at least).

Which overall strong generation of players was that? If you're going to try for Safin and Nalbandian, then I'm going to have to laugh at you laughing at Dimitrov.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Federer also has to beat Rafa at RG (like Rafa did at Wimbledon) or at least improve his 3-10 deficit in their slam meetings. Novak and Fed also need to achieve their ultimate dream of winning the Olympics Gold. Anyway the only record that will never be beaten is the 12 RGs (and only 2 losses!), everything else will eventually be surpassed (slam count, weeks at #1, etc.). Some people think that the RG count is a negative when it’s actually the most positive, impressive & immortal record. Compared to Rafa at RG nobody can be considered “great”.

Actually, no - especially about Olympics Gold. It is a nice frill but not at all necessary for GOATdom. And no player can be exempt from GOATness by virtue of a single match-up. Yes, Rafa's edge over Roger diminishes Roger's overall GOATness, but it doesn't negate it.

I am continually amazed at how some fans don't even try to be objective and spin everything to make their guy look better. At least make an attempt.

Every player of the big 3 will tell you that Olympics > WTF yet you have no problem using the WTF against Rafa. And you talk about being objective. Lol

 

[El Dude]

Which overall strong generation of players was that? If you're going to try for Safin and Nalbandian, then I'm going to have to laugh at you laughing at Dimitrov.

Safin and Nalbandian are of the same generation as Federer. I'm talking about Rafa, Novak, Andy, del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, etc - a much stronger generation than the equivalent group for Rafa and Novak: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Tomic, Thiem, etc.

 

[El Dude]

Every player of the big 3 will tell you that Olympics > WTF yet you have no problem using the WTF against Rafa. And you talk about being objective. Lol

Consider who among 6+ winners does not have each:

WTF: Rafa, Wilander
Olympics: Everyone except Rafa and Agassi.

The point being, just about every great player has won the WTF while the vast majority did not win an Olympics.

I'm not saying that winning Olympics Gold is not desireable to players - clearly it is. But I don't think it has any bearing on greatness, other than as kind of "extra credit." So it adds to Rafa and Andy's resumes and qualifications, but it doesn't take away from Roger's, Novak's, Pete's, etc.