Federer Nadal - age comparison

This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H, but to compare and contrast the two men's careers at the same age - i.e Rafa at 25 is 4yrs and 10 months younger than Federer at 30 so you can compare his record and position now with Fed's in 2007 (January 2007 if you are being precise) - and speculate on where they may end.

There's a good summary here http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Nadal.html, and also here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry

Comparing February 2007 Fed with February 2012 Nadal I'd suggest the following:

a. Rafa started everything younger than Fed - he raced ahead with slam wins but now its very tight with Fed and Rafa on 10 each (stopping the watch at AO 2007/2012) - unless Rafa wins 2 more this year he'll fall behind Fed's rate and I think he really needs to get ahead of Fed's rate at this age to stand a chance of over-taking him.

b. Rafa is more than a whole year's worth of weeks at No. 1 behind Fed

c. Rafa is miles ahead on Masters Series Wins and DC wins but well behind on TMC/WTF wins

d. They are neck-and-neck on overall tournament wins at 46 each including Fed's AO 2007

e. Rafa's w/l is superior to Fed's at the same age (although Fed's has improved by almost 2% since 2007).

f. Hindsight tells us that about 5 years ago Fed was at his absolute peak as a tennis player and the first cracks in his mastery were just about to appear with those two losses to Canas at IW and Miami. 2007 marked the end of years with 10+ tournament wins or 90% w/l ratios: having said that, in the five years since February 2007 Fed has been none too shabby managing another 6 slam wins.

g. In 2007 Fed had the beating of pretty much all his opponents with the exception of his main rival Nadal who was in command on clay but beatable elsewhere and did not dominate the H2H for another year. In 2012 Nadal has the beating of pretty much all his opponents (in slams at least) with the exception of his main rival who is currently more dominant over him than he ever has been over Federer.

h. They have a comparable 'mileage' in terms of matches played - Rafa has only played about 50 more matches than Fed at the same age, a difference of less than 10%.

Nadal has made fools of those predicting his career path often enough, but it's almost impossible to believe that he will be able to sustain similar sustained quality between now and 2017 as Fed has done in the 5 years since 2007. I'd go further, I suspect that 25 will prove to have been the 'turning point' age at which Federer's career trajectory will be shown to have caught up with the effect of Rafa's early gains. I am well aware that without Djoko on form Rafa could start cleaning up in the big tournaments pretty smartly - but my assessment of the Aus Open 2012 is that it was just as encouraging for Murray and Djoko, and probably more so, than it was for Nadal.

Therefore, on what I consider to be the three main indicators:

* Fed's overall slam total of 16 is looking safer from Nadal as each slam passes us by.

* Nadal has no prospect of beating Fed's tally of weeks or y/e at No. 1.

* I'd be very surprised if Nadal ends up with more overall tournament wins than Federer - he's got to win at least another 25 and his past rate of accumulating wins suggests that will be beyond him in the future, particularly if he is going to reduce his schedule. He has not won away from clay since October 2010.

A superb article. Well written, researched, presented and very accurate (as far as I can tell) and informative.

I think you're slightly too certain about Nadal's inability to overtake Federer for weeks or years at #1. This is unlikely, but cannot be ruled out absolutely.

Rafa may have played 10% more matches but probably played more like e.g. 15% more hours and court and e.g. 20% more distance run!

HB - thanks.

Nadal has had 102 weeks at No. 1, Fed is on 285 weeks. The difference between them is therefore 183 weeks or 3.5 years. I can't for the life of me see Nadal eking out another 3.5 years at No. 1 or managing to be the y/e No. 1 another 3 times.

Djoko on 35 weeks at No. 1 and counting has a better chance of overhauling Nadal on 102 weeks than Nadal has of overhauling Fed.

I'd say the main difference between those 2 is that Nadal developed physically much earlier than Fed and that makes their record comparable at 25. When both will have past their 30s there will be a big difference in Federer's favour.

Also Federer will be remembered as unbeatable on grass, HC and Indoors at his peak.

Nadal at his peak is being beaten on all surfaces by a better player of similar age and probably soon by other players.

Finally Federer's career has been seriously affected by changing (slower)conditions, improved diets and training. I don;t think any one would have ever been able to get a decent H2H against him with a similar physiology, or physical performances as seen before 2005. Only the arrival of player(s) with a higher level of energy got the better of him.

Henman Bill wrote:
I think you're slightly too certain about Nadal's inability to overtake Federer for weeks or years at #1. This is unlikely, but cannot be ruled out absolutely.

Can you really see Nadal regaining the top spot for another 180 weeks? a total of 3 and a half years? Frankly I see Federer as having more chance of regaining it than Nadal....and I am not kidding.

Federer's economical game would benefit him even further as he gets older.

He may also be able to overhaul Lendl's 94 titles, he is on 71 now.

Connors's 149 titles may be a bit too far, even for Federer.

PS: Nice article, BarryStar.

laverfan wrote:Federer's economical game would benefit him even further as he gets older.

He may also be able to overhaul Lendl's 94 titles, he is on 71 now.

Connors's 149 titles may be a bit too far, even for Federer.

PS: Nice article, BarryStar.

What? 23more titles in the next 3 or 4 years? Never.

I can't see Federer overhauling Lendl's 94, McEnroe's 77 is a far more realistic target.

I think Nadal is more likely to regain No. 1 than Fed, but not for a very long time if he does.

Laverfan, Conors doesn't have that many singles titles I think that singles and doubles combined. Although he does have over 100 wins if I remember.

Interesting article by barrystar. Roger's records are looking good for awhile. I don't think anyone will break his grandslam record or consecutive weeks at #1 record. Or many other like most consecutive grandslam semis. But frankly, the h2h record with Nadal is more important than alot of Fed fans portray it. However, Roger is clearly the more accomplished player.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, Conors doesn't have that many singles titles I think that singles and doubles combined. Although he does have over 100 wins if I remember.

Interesting article by barrystar. Roger's records are looking good for awhile. I don't think anyone will break his grandslam record or consecutive weeks at #1 record. Or many other like most consecutive grandslam semis. But frankly, the h2h record with Nadal is more important than alot of Fed fans portray it. However, Roger is clearly the more accomplished player.

Career singles titles (149) and runner-ups (54)

109 titles are registered in the ATP Web site, and 40 are not listed in any ATP Statistics

Excellent article, Fed's greatness will be summed when he retires, I still think he has 4 more slams in him[ 1 in each of grandslam].

Really good article.

In the general scheme of things, I would have thought that we will see Rafa begin to slow down a little now - he has played high intensity tennis for a very long time. However, I think the fact that players who were feted a few years ago as being part of a new golden generation: Tsonga (too inconsistent by far), Berdych (too flaky) and Monfils (please!) are unlikely to challenge the top two regularly, and I just can't see where the challenge is coming from apart from Murray who so far has fallen just short. Similarly, JMDP might well cause an upset or two, but I don't think he is going to topple Rafa or Novak anytime soon. Ironically, it is still the old man, Federer, that seems to be one of the most likely challengers if he has a 'vintage day'.

So, given Rafa's career trajectory, I would certainly agree with the premise that it would be looking more unlikely that he would catch Fed in slams if it were not for the fact that I can't see a new star emerging from the rank and file.

Very interesting stats and some good posts. With Rafa being successful so much earlier than Rog and with the physical nature of today's matches, it's difficult to see Nadal being able to go on as long as Fed.
Must say I thought when Rafa got to number one in 08 that he was gonna put in a 150-200 week stint at the top. But then came the 09 hiatus and then Djoko and there now appears no way that he will get anywhere near the 286 mark.
The 77 titles to equal the Johnny Mac mark is certainly on for Fed, as is 900 tour wins. Rafa is gonna have to go some to get 70 titles. But taking Time Please's views into account, there does seem to be a lack of young challengers to the big 4. Raonic, perhaps, or Nishikori?

LIke Nadal, Raonic has a head start physically and this is why some consider him , for now, as the player with best potential.

However I am sure most of all the other youngsters will be coming to the top stage very soon, when they reach 22/23 or even 24. Like in cycling nowadays, you cannot have young successful players...unless you are physically fitter than most adults at 20.

This is the main (if not the sole) reason why Nadal has had such a good head start compared to the others and why he has had such a prlific career thus far.

Now that this physical edge is disappearing with new players coming, Nadal is going to struggle more and more.

From the new generation, I also see Raonic is the most dangerous. His serve is absolutely amazing, and the rest of his game esp. forehand is shaping up. Apart from those weapons, he's a good match player. He's already won two events this year, and is looking good again in Memphis.

His loss in Melbourne was surprising, but Hewitt played quite well, even giving some trouble to Djokovic in the next round.

time please wrote:
So, given Rafa's career trajectory, I would certainly agree with the premise that it would be looking more unlikely that he would catch Fed in slams if it were not for the fact that I can't see a new star emerging from the rank and file.

That's the point I was nodding to when I accepted the importance of Djoko staying fit to my analysis. Without a currently superior Djoko Nadal would have had an absolute banner 12 months and would be favourite in every slam and major event for a while yet - he may be feeling a bit like he made Federer feel 4-5 years ago.

I agree that I don't see any youngsters likely to break into the top 4 this year, but I feel that Murray is getting closer to Nadal. I do see the next 12 months as crucial to Nadal's overall place in the record books. Overhauling Fed's big scores looks like a tall order on any basis, but if Djoko (or anyone else) blocks Nadal out of most of the slams and Masters tournaments this year he will have lost any chance to overhaul Fed. I suspect that this is of more interest to us hangers-on than the man himself, but that's not the point.

I take Socal's point about the Nadal-Fed H2H: this thread is not really supposed to be about that H2H, but about how their records against the rest of the field will stack up. For the reasons I give I think we've seen enough of both of their careers to be able to start speculating on that.

I agree that I don't see any youngsters likely to break into the top 4 this year, but I feel that Murray is getting closer to Nadal.

THat's one thing. I however see the youngsters creating upses this year..against the current top 4.

They progress very quickly.

The h2h is only useful if you break it down to surfaces, then you see two players who are very competitive except when they play on clay (many times) and indoor (rarely).

The biggest way to undermine the h2h is to note that if Federer was an inferior clay player he'd have an equal or positive h2h with Nadal. Makes a nonsense of it.

Tenez wrote:

I agree that I don't see any youngsters likely to break into the top 4 this year, but I feel that Murray is getting closer to Nadal.

THat's one thing. I however see the youngsters creating upses this year..against the current top 4.

They progress very quickly.

Agreed - 12 months is a very long time in tennis. You only need to look back to the beginning of 2009 and remember that a young Del Potro was creamed 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 at the Australian Open by Fed...

bogbrush wrote:The h2h is only useful if you break it down to surfaces, then you see two players who are very competitive except when they play on clay (many times) and indoor (rarely).

The biggest way to undermine the h2h is to note that if Federer was an inferior clay player he'd have an equal or positive h2h with Nadal. Makes a nonsense of it.

I see what you say, but it all ends up being a bit circular when you look at it in the overall context of how to view their records. Fed is not discussed in the context of being a great hard/fast court specialist, he is discussed in the context of being the greatest player to pick up a racquet who can excel on all surfaces but happens to have coincided with another great who is probably the best clay-courter ever. In my view it is part of Fed's greatness that Nadal is an opponent from whom he has never run scared - he has always tried to get through to win the big clay titles and risk his beating from Rafa. Those promoting Fed (like me) cannot have it both ways - if Fed was an inferior clay player we'd be saying that he and Nadal are "competitive" on the majority of surfaces, namely those favouring Fed, but that Fed isn't even at the races on clay. Fed's comparisons with Sampras would be far less favourable than they are because at least Sampras managed to dominate his major rival which Fed would not have done over Nadal even if you isolate the H2H away from clay.

Fed would not have done better vs. Nadal had the latter not had the advantage of all those wins on clay - Nadal was a tough opponent for Fed away from clay from the very off as shown by Miami 2004 & 2005 and Dubai 2006 right at the beginning of their rivalry.

As I see the H2H it must be significant in assessing whether Federer is the greatest player of all time to note that he had a very lop-sided H2H against his main rival - this can be diluted for a number of reasons including those given by me and those given by you as well as the very specific fact of their match-up, but it's not a nonsense in the context of a GOAT debate.

B'star. Yet but Delpo was well beaten in the AO this year and, more recently, at Rotterdam. As much as it would be fun to see some real challenges to the big four, I can't - unlike Tenez - see where the upsets are going to come from. Maybe IW and Miami might give us some indication.

sirfredperry wrote:B'star. Yet but Delpo was well beaten in the AO this year and, more recently, at Rotterdam. As much as it would be fun to see some real challenges to the big four, I can't - unlike Tenez - see where the upsets are going to come from. Maybe IW and Miami might give us some indication.

I agree with you - all I am saying is that just because we can't see where they may come from it does not mean that we won't be surprised, much though I don't expect it.

sirfredperry wrote:B'star. Yet but Delpo was well beaten in the AO this year and, more recently, at Rotterdam. As much as it would be fun to see some real challenges to the big four, I can't - unlike Tenez - see where the upsets are going to come from. Maybe IW and Miami might give us some indication.

Upsets in IW and Miami won't give us much clue cause I don;t think the top players are going to give it as much time as the slams. I am referring to slams.

I think younger players like Tomic, Raonic, even Dimitrov, Dolgo, Young and Harrison will be up for it. They all lost pretty close matches versus top players last January. 6 months down the line....they might become pretty tough to handle.

Let's not forget that they are developing their reflexes against tougher players than those top 4 were faced with at the same age. That is going to be crucial in teh next few months.

I hope you're right Tenez, it would be good to see a bit of a shake-up, and some big upsets by younger players would be good for the game I feel.
It will be interesting to see how the big 4 cope with the younger players, especially Fed, because of how many generations he has played against. Agassi Sampras, Roddick Nalbandian etc, Nadal and Djokovic, and now who knows. It will add another chapter to his story.

HarpoMars wrote:I hope you're right Tenez, it would be good to see a bit of a shake-up, and some big upsets by younger players would be good for the game I feel.
It will be interesting to see how the big 4 cope with the younger players, especially Fed, because of how many generations he has played against. Agassi Sampras, Roddick Nalbandian etc, Nadal and Djokovic, and now who knows. It will add another chapter to his story.

I am rarely wrong.

It's like those who could not see DJoko ending the Fedal rivalry. Djoko went from being clear top 3 or even top 4 to unbeatable top 1 over a few months. And frankly, no-one, bar maybe NITB, could see what weapons Djoko had that could pretend to such a domination.

I see those youngsters as having more weapons than Djoko and Nadal but they haven't got the physique yet to support them over 5 sets. But things can change quickly as we saw for Djoko...or even Murray.

Wow. Great article if even for just that last sentence

Yes, few if any predicted Djoko's recent run. But he showed as far back as the 07 USO final - didn't he have a number of set points? - that he was the business. The difference - and what's got him to number one - has been fitness and belief.

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, few if any predicted Djoko's recent run. But he showed as far back as the 07 USO final - didn't he have a number of set points? - that he was the business. The difference - and what's got him to number one - has been fitness and belief.

Federer said novak could have won in 3 sets as he had leads in all 3

LuvSports! wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, few if any predicted Djoko's recent run. But he showed as far back as the 07 USO final - didn't he have a number of set points? - that he was the business. The difference - and what's got him to number one - has been fitness and belief.

Federer said novak could have won in 3 sets as he had leads in all 3

Don't forget Dr. Sincere who foretold this after Djoko's win at the Canada Masters in 2007

comment by Dr_Sincere (U2021784)
posted Aug 12, 2007

Novak Djokovic has now announced himself on the world stage as the best player on hardcourts. I will be surprised if the Serb does not win the US Open and the Australian Open. If Roger Federer is to stand any chance of beating the younger, fitter, faster man then he must start serve and volleying like the great Pete Sampras. The Pistol knew when he wouldn't win slams from the back of the court, now it's time that the Swiss realised that too. The Djokovic era has begun.

I hope that the good Dr. has recovered from his immortal spejaculation during the course of the US Open Final:

comment by Dr_Sincere (U2021784)
posted Sep 9, 2007

Who is laughing now? Novak Djokovic is beating the Swiss in almost every rally. First set to the Serb.

| complain about this comment

Proof were it needed that if you keep saying the same thing again and again you may eventually be proven right, even 4 years down the line...

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, few if any predicted Djoko's recent run. But he showed as far back as the 07 USO final - didn't he have a number of set points? - that he was the business. The difference - and what's got him to number one - has been fitness and belief.

BUt in 2007 fitness was only an issue when facing Nadal...on clay. Let's go back to 2007 opposition (talented but not amazingly fit compared to Murray/Nadal/Djoko) and I bet you that those youngsters would have already made their marks v the top 2007 players.

Problem is nowadays....it's simply physically too tough and talent and shotmaking are simply irrelevant. Murray and Tomic can go far with a pushed sliced BH and FH. That tells you how much leg work is needed today to get through the rounds.

Tenez wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Yes, few if any predicted Djoko's recent run. But he showed as far back as the 07 USO final - didn't he have a number of set points? - that he was the business. The difference - and what's got him to number one - has been fitness and belief.

BUt in 2007 fitness was only an issue when facing Nadal...on clay. Let's go back to 2007 opposition (talented but not amazingly fit compared to Murray/Nadal/Djoko) and I bet you that those youngsters would have already made their marks v the top 2007 players.

Problem is nowadays....it's simply physically too tough and talent and shotmaking are simply irrelevant. Murray and Tomic can go far with a pushed sliced BH and FH. That tells you how much leg work is needed today to get through the rounds.

Fed's always been extraordinarily fit, even in 2007 - but I agree that the problem you are presented with when playing him boils down to more than his fitness!

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Federer's economical game would benefit him even further as he gets older.

He may also be able to overhaul Lendl's 94 titles, he is on 71 now.

Connors's 149 titles may be a bit too far, even for Federer.

PS: Nice article, BarryStar.

What? 23more titles in the next 3 or 4 years? Never.

Why do you consider it impossible?

Regarding youngsters, there are many in ATP now, whose game will mature a bit.

Djokovic is on the doorstep of greatness with FO 2012. He may eclipse Fedal in terms of career achievements.

Socal... the h2h is just one dimension of the Fedal legend, not the only yardstick to beat Federer with.

barrystar wrote:This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H

barrystar wrote:but it's not a nonsense in the context of a GOAT debate.

Should we also use never retiring from a match as a yardstick for GOATness?

The point I am trying to make is that, despite being contemporaries, and have had similar careers, they are two very different players. Closest I can see is a Laver-Rosewall rivalry, the 79-63 h2h is just one dimension.

Their individual matches were a lot of fun to watch, when available.

laverfan wrote:

barrystar wrote:This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H

barrystar wrote:but it's not a nonsense in the context of a GOAT debate.

Should we also use never retiring from a match as a yardstick for GOATness?

The point I am trying to make is that, despite being contemporaries, and have had similar careers, they are two very different players. Closest I can see is a Laver-Rosewall rivalry, the 79-63 h2h is just one dimension.

Their individual matches were a lot of fun to watch, when available.

We agree - there are many yardsticks and I am saying that the H2H gets chucked into the pot for consideration. It's not the determinant, way from it, but it's not irrelevant either.

For me the biggest factor beyond the numbers is the joyous way in which Fed has played and (the odd bit of petulance/smugness aside) his essentially blemish-free conduct, particuarly on the Court. He has brought so much interest back to men's tennis since his rise to the top - almost any sport you like would kill for a figurehead/example like he's been for the last 7-8 years.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Federer's economical game would benefit him even further as he gets older.

He may also be able to overhaul Lendl's 94 titles, he is on 71 now.

Connors's 149 titles may be a bit too far, even for Federer.

PS: Nice article, BarryStar.

What? 23more titles in the next 3 or 4 years? Never.

Why do you consider it impossible?

Regarding youngsters, there are many in ATP now, whose game will mature a bit.

Djokovic is on the doorstep of greatness with FO 2012. He may eclipse Fedal in terms of career achievements.

Socal... the h2h is just one dimension of the Fedal legend, not the only yardstick to beat Federer with.

Cause I am not as big a fan of Fed as one might think. Federer has at best 2 years left to grab titles. That would mean he would need to have to dominate like in the good old days, if not better, to grab 23 titles.

Clearly not possible!

barrystar wrote:For me the biggest factor beyond the numbers is the joyous way in which Fed has played and (the odd bit of petulance/smugness aside) his essentially blemish-free conduct, particuarly on the Court.

I know you have mentioned that a few times....but in sport there is little joy in watching someone having all teh talent and courtesy to be beaten by less talented and maybe sometimes, less courteous players.

Federer without his record would mean little to me. I can think of many players in the past who had great talent but did not achieve in proportion to it. And I find this very frustrating to the point that I wished sometimes they had not played.

Federer to me is great to watch if he wins. I have difficulty to re-watch his matches where he loses against a stubborn crosscourt FH landing on his BH.

Tenez wrote:Cause I am not as big a fan of Fed as one might think. Federer has at best 2 years left to grab titles. That would mean he would need to have to dominate like in the good old days, if not better, to grab 23 titles.

Clearly not possible!

If he plays till 36, which is roughly 6 years, four titles a year, seem likely.

barrystar wrote:He has brought so much interest back to men's tennis since his rise to the top - almost any sport you like would kill for a figurehead/example like he's been for the last 7-8 years.

Absolutely.

I think it's remarkable how close they are when compared at the same age. When predicticting the future what's happened in the past is good evidence. Based on this I would say that Nadal has a good chance at finishing with a similar number of trophies and titles as Federer.

Some have been saying that Nadals career trajectory will start to plummet "next year" since he was 19...

hawkeye wrote:I think it's remarkable how close they are when compared at the same age. When predicticting the future what's happened in the past is good evidence. Based on this I would say that Nadal has a good chance at finishing with a similar number of trophies and titles as Federer.

Some have been saying that Nadals career trajectory will start to plummet "next year" since he was 19...

True the physical demise of Nadal has been predicted many times- but it's a certain reality that at some point it will become true-- at some point true age gets everyone.
So as Nadal enters his late 20's, he's now in the area where nearly every player in history has declined somewhat and knowing Nadals style and constant issues- there is little doupt in my mind that he will decline.

It's similiar to all the Fed haters who kept saying he was going to lose #1, yet he kept chugging along and they were wrong............and suddenly one day they were right......... If you make a prediction long enough that you know is inevitable, eventually you are right.

It's very hard to see Nadal being anywhere near the level Federer is at now when Nadal is this age. His game is simply built on other strengths than Federers, and those strengths will be even more affected by mileage on the legs than Feds..

Tenez wrote:I know you have mentioned that a few times....but in sport there is little joy in watching someone having all teh talent and courtesy to be beaten by less talented and maybe sometimes, less courteous players.

Federer without his record would mean little to me. I can think of many players in the past who had great talent but did not achieve in proportion to it. And I find this very frustrating to the point that I wished sometimes they had not played.

Perhaps you misunderstood me - I was referring to the combination of success and talent. When I said "beyond" meant it cumulatively.

Success without artistry is impressive but not something I'd give up your leisure time to watch, talent without success is exasperating. Put the two together and you've got something - that is Fed for me.

TRuffin

I wasn't trying to say that Nadal will go on forever! Just that he might continue along the same career tragectory as Federer. The one that has been remarkably similar upto now.

hawkeye wrote:TRuffin

I wasn't trying to say that Nadal will go on forever! Just that he might continue along the same career tragectory as Federer. The one that has been remarkably similar upto now.

But I don't think it has been similar; Nadal enjoyed serious success much sooner than Federer; his line on the graph took off at an earlier point. That their lines are now intersecting suggests his gradient has been slowing since the time when he reached the same age Federer started winning, and therefore it's not unreasonable to project a continued relative decelleration to Federer.

Very different trajectories and results.

Federer has won 15 slams on 3 different surfaces and one on clay.

Nadal has won 60% of his slams on clay and had to wait for the courts to slow down to win outside clay.

Good discussion. Of course Tenez, one might argue that Federer also had to wait for the courts to slow down before he won a slam? Certainly by 2003 SW19 & USO had slowed down dramatically.

I also think someone like Djokovic has of course blunted Nadal's weeks at number 1, did Federer have the same depth of competition to deal with in comparison to the current top 4 in 2004-7? And I know this has been done to death but just raising. The fact we cant answer that categorically does render metric-based comparisons difficult.

Its going to be very hard for Nadal to surpass any of Federer's records, and it always was going to be. Nadal has done well to win what he has and if he wins nothing else from this point forward will be pretty happy with his lot. Also, when people say Federer was unbeatable on grass lets not forget Nadal's run on clay has been unprecented - given clay takes up a much bigger chuck of the tour than grass (1 slam, 3 Masters and a 500 as the big ones...grass is basically 1 slam and a 250) to be up at around 92% W:L is nothing short of remarkable in this age where events play more similarly than ever before.

Nadal has been "hard at it" for 8 years or so now...most players can only be strong for so long, its unrealistic to expect Nadal to carry on into the future as he has been doing, he's got a lot of miles under his legs vs. his peers. If he ends up on 11-12 slams he's pretty much up there regardless. Not bad for a "clay-courter" from Majorca.

lydian wrote:Good discussion. Of course Tenez, one might argue that Federer also had to wait for the courts to slow down before he won a slam? Certainly by 2003 SW19 & USO had slowed down dramatically.

yes that's your theory, not the reality. Fed had to mature, not to wait for courts to slow down. May I remnd you that he won twice Rotterdam and a few times Cincy, the fasters courts known to this era. And didn't he win Rome while it was played on carpet at an early age?

DO I need to remind you that at 19 he beat the then grestest player on grass ...on fast grass? You know the year Rafater and Goran were in the final...not the one that saw a Hewitt/Nalby final.

lydian wrote:Good discussion. Of course Tenez, one might argue that Federer also had to wait for the courts to slow down before he won a slam? Certainly by 2003 SW19 & USO had slowed down dramatically.

I also think someone like Djokovic has of course blunted Nadal's weeks at number 1, did Federer have the same depth of competition to deal with in comparison to the current top 4 in 2004-7? And I know this has been done to death but just raising. The fact we cant answer that categorically does render metric-based comparisons difficult.

Its going to be very hard for Nadal to surpass any of Federer's records, and it always was going to be. Nadal has done well to win what he has and if he wins nothing else from this point forward will be pretty happy with his lot. Also, when people say Federer was unbeatable on grass lets not forget Nadal's run on clay has been unprecented - given clay takes up a much bigger chuck of the tour than grass (1 slam, 3 Masters and a 500 as the big ones...grass is basically 1 slam and a 250) to be up at around 92% W:L is nothing short of remarkable in this age where events play more similarly than ever before.

Nadal has been "hard at it" for 8 years or so now...most players can only be strong for so long, its unrealistic to expect Nadal to carry on into the future as he has been doing, he's got a lot of miles under his legs vs. his peers. If he ends up on 11-12 slams he's pretty much up there regardless. Not bad for a "clay-courter" from Majorca.

Predicting just one or two more slams for Nadal IMO is remakably pessimistic. This is a player who has reached the final in 7 of the last eight slams and won 4 of the last 8! Of course he could only win one or two more or indeed never win another slam but there is every reason to believe he might do better.

Tenez

So Federer was capable of great things at just 19. Are you saying he was precocious just like Nadal?

prostaff85 wrote:From the new generation, I also see Raonic is the most dangerous. His serve is absolutely amazing, and the rest of his game esp. forehand is shaping up. Apart from those weapons, he's a good match player. He's already won two events this year, and is looking good again in Memphis.

His loss in Melbourne was surprising, but Hewitt played quite well, even giving some trouble to Djokovic in the next round.

Definetly, Raonic looks like the one who will get a grandslam out of this crop. I think Tomic will also and Harrison could be in it with the rest of them battling out for top honors over the next few years. He has the great serve but for a big man he moves pretty well and retains his balance and coordination. He also is a frequent volleyer which should make the (whoa is me attacking tennis is dead crowd) pretty happy.

As I say Tenez...one may argue.
Yes Fed has had some success on fasters courts, but lets not ignore nearly all his success is when the courts are much slower. Conversely, we cannot say he would have won 16 slams had the conditions been quick as in 90s...after all you point out the wins he had at an early, but on the other hand he lost routinely to fast court players like Rafter, Kafelnikov and Henman when courts were quicker.
So the point is that cross-period comparisons are very difficult to make at the end of the day because conditions are always changing and we cannot extrapolate results from one time period to another...or compare two players time periods with anything other than curiosity.