Would you like Federer to be on tour when Nadal wins 18th slam title?

[NADAL2005RG]

I think it adds to the (already massive) occasion, and when Federer broke Sampras' record I think it would have been more exciting if Sampras was still on tour. Even if the record-holder is unlikely to stop the record-taker, it still adds to the suspense (especially if they meet in the final of the dethroning event).

 

[britbox]

I don't think Nadal will get to 17.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I don't think Nadal will get to 17.

But would Nadal winning 18 be far more interesting with Federer still on tour, or would make no real difference? I think Federer will still be a slam contender in 2-3 years from now, especially at Roland Garros where the new balls are weakest (Raonic, Tomic etc.).

 

[britbox]

I don't think Nadal will get to 17.

But would Nadal winning 18 be far more interesting with Federer still on tour, or would make no real difference? I think Federer will still be a slam contender in 2-3 years from now, especially at Roland Garros where the new balls are weakest (Raonic, Tomic etc.).

Probably more interesting if it happened.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I don't think Nadal will get to 17.

But would Nadal winning 18 be far more interesting with Federer still on tour, or would make no real difference? I think Federer will still be a slam contender in 2-3 years from now, especially at Roland Garros where the new balls are weakest (Raonic, Tomic etc.).

Probably more interesting if it happened.

I think it will enthrall the media beyond anything we've seen since Billie Jean King's Battle of the Sexes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I wouldn't care either way. And Nadal is not winning 18.

 

[Moxie]

Welcome to the Frontier, Nadal2005RG. IF Nadal gets to 17 or 18, and it's a bit early for that, I don't see how it matters that Roger still be on tour. Their stories will always be rather intertwined, and especially Rafa's will be pegged to Roger's, but if Rafa plays long enough to get that many majors, I don't know if Roger will still be active. In any case, that's looking a bit too far ahead, don't you think? I'd be happy to see #13 by Monday.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I wouldn't care either way. And Nadal is not winning 18.

Looks likely unless they can stop him on hardcourts. Before people thought he'd need a bunch of Roland Garros titles to get there. Now he's got USO and AO to rely on.
2013 USO: 13
2014 AO: 14
2015 RG: 15
Plus I think they are moving Wimbledon to a week later in the future, so that will help Nadal prepare. Unless Djokovic can improve (Nadal has won 5 of their last 6 meetings), who else is coming for Nadal?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not sure how we can say it's "likely" when he's still on 12 and has a history of dodgy knees. He needs SIX more to get 18. SIX.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Welcome to the Frontier, Nadal2005RG. IF Nadal gets to 17 or 18, and it's a bit early for that, I don't see how it matters that Roger still be on tour. Their stories will always be rather intertwined, and especially Rafa's will be pegged to Roger's, but if Rafa plays long enough to get that many majors, I don't know if Roger will still be active. In any case, that's looking a bit too far ahead, don't you think? I'd be happy to see #13 by Monday.

Nadal is certainly planting the seeds for future domination. Nadal isn't letting Dimitrov, Tomic, Raonic (or the late-bloomer Isner) get a win over him. He's undefeated vs all of them. Wheres Murray has already lost to Raonic twice, and Djokovic has already lost to Dimitrov. The bigger psychological barrier Nadal forms between him and the new balls, the more promising Nadal's future looks. And can't say I'm convinced with Murray. Hard to see who will stop Nadal, even if he has to take some months off now and then to keep the tendinitis away (and we've seen Serena deal with tendinitis her entire career, taking plenty of time off and now better than ever).

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Not sure how we can say it's "likely" when he's still on 12 and has a history of dodgy knees. He needs SIX more to get 18. SIX.

Now Nadal knows all he needs is to take some months off and his knees settle down. Seems that he and his team didn't know that before, or weren't willing to do it. Now he has no bandages on his knees, and has won 20 in a row on hardcourts. And let's not forget, Nadal doesn't get back problems. Federer, Murray and Djokovic all get back problems. Nadal has knee tendinitis, but never required knee surgery. There's a big difference. If his knees were really serious, he wouldn't be the only man in history to have won slams for 9 years in a row (2005-2013).

 

[britbox]

Things can change very quickly in tennis - when people make projections about slam numbers, they often project what is happening in the present into the future as if the player and the environment around them won't change.

My guess is he won't get to 18. Six majors is a hall of fame career in itself and I suspect he will have more injury concerns in the future not less.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Things can change very quickly in tennis - when people make projections about slam numbers, they often project what is happening in the present into the future as if the player and the environment around them won't change.

My guess is he won't get to 18. Six majors is a hall of fame career in itself and I suspect he will have more injury concerns in the future not less.

Exactly, the change is happening very fast. The best claycourter is suddenly the best hardcourter. I'm not actually looking too far ahead, just until June next year. Nadal with 15 slams by June next year is my prediction. I think we can all agree that he is the favorite to win 2013 USO and 2014 RG. The only slam I'm going out on my own with is AO 2014. You are welcome to believe injury will end his career after that. But nobody has ever been right before about Nadal's knees being career-ending. As Nadal himself said last year "Nobody has ever retired with what I have". But you are entitled to believe in the injury. Agree to disagree.

 

[masterclass]

I think the likelihood of Nadal passing Federer is almost as remote as a revelation coming forth from the ITF that a top player has tested positive.

What is more likely is that Rafa will disappear from the scene for a while for one reason or another as has happened in the past, thus making the achievement too difficult for him. Also tennis is not static. Eventually it's likely a player will come along that will be able to beat Rafa at Roland Garros.

It's also possible that Federer will win a major here or there before he retires, making it even more difficult. One shouldn't count out a champion until he has departed from the scene.

But I'll never say never.

To answer the OP question which is incorrectly stated (the word if should be used, not when), it matters not.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ok, can we at least wait to see if he wins the US Open before all this talk? Because for a second there i thought he already bit the trophy. We only have to wait two days to find out

 

[DarthFed]

It's funny that people think him winning this trophy is a foregone conclusion when most probably wouldn't even favor him over Djokovic in the final.

As for the question, it wouldn't matter, if Roger is on tour in 2-3 years (unlikely) he might be looking like Lleyton Hewitt by then.

 

[El Dude]

For me Rafa's most likely final Slam count is 15-17. That would be 2-3 more Roland Garros, and 0-2 more other Slams. It would be fitting if he finished with the same total as Roger, although I'd bet against it at this point. To me 15 is the most likely number.

As far as 18 goes, I think his chances of getting to 18 are about the same as his chances of staying at 12 - very small, but possible. The point being, there's a scenario where he stalls out at 12 that's just as possible as him winning six more - the entire career of greats like Edberg and Becker.

I do think Rafa is the best tennis player in the world when he's fully healthy and on his game. But the problem is, its harder for him to maintain his championship level than it is for Novak Djokovic or maybe even Andy Murray - he's more prone to injury and upset. Each year the chances of an injury just get greater and greater, and the older he gets the harder it will be to come back from injury. I really have a hard time imagining Rafa being at the top in his 30s.

 

[DarthFed]

For me Rafa's most likely final Slam count is 15-17. That would be 2-3 more Roland Garros, and 0-2 more other Slams. It would be fitting if he finished with the same total as Roger, although I'd bet against it at this point. To me 15 is the most likely number.

As far as 18 goes, I think his chances of getting to 18 are about the same as his chances of staying at 12 - very small, but possible. The point being, there's a scenario where he stalls out at 12 that's just as possible as him winning six more - the entire career of greats like Edberg and Becker.

I do think Rafa is the best tennis player in the world when he's fully healthy and on his game. But the problem is, its harder for him to maintain his championship level than it is for Novak Djokovic or maybe even Andy Murray - he's more prone to injury and upset. Each year the chances of an injury just get greater and greater, and the older he gets the harder it will be to come back from injury. I really have a hard time imagining Rafa being at the top in his 30s.

Barring severe injury he is winning more than 2 more RG's. He doesn't need good movement to win there, that forehand is more than enough. The question is the other slams, he is playing unreal hard court tennis right now but that doesn't mean it's going to last. I also disagree about him being the best player when "healthy and on." That's Djokovic when you factor in all the surfaces.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Why does Djokovic only win the Australian Open? Is Djokovic only healthy/on in Australia? The only year he won other slams was 2011, and that Wimbledon he won was after Nadal injured his foot in the Del Potro match. That foot also plagued Nadal's chances at 2011 US Open because if you recall correctly Nadal said just before 2011 USO that he wasn't ready for the USO because due to his foot he hadn't trained at all after Wimbledon until he arrived in Canada. He said he wasn't ready physically but that "I'll try my best". As you can see, he ran out of energy in the 4th set of the USO final. Outside of Australia (6 hour final in 2012), I've never seen Djokovic beat a 100% fit Nadal at a slam.

 

[Front242]

Very few players are ever 100% healthy all year long. The notion that no one beats Nadal when he's "100% fit" is pure fanboy nonsense sorry. That US Open 2011 was the most frenetically paced physical final I've seen and they were both drained at the end. Djokovic's back spasms made him unable to serve better than Sara Errani so maybe you should be looking into how an injured Djokovic serving WTA style won rather than the notion that Nadal wasn't 100%

As for "I'll try my best", Nadal says that no matter who he is playing and it means nothing. It's just the way he's always been in press interviews.