Federer Nadal - age comparison

First topic message reminder :

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.

Tenez wrote:Fed also got tired in AO 2005, FO final 2006, 2007 but also USO 2009 v Delpo, AO09, USO10, USO11.

You forgot to add:
-FO semi 2005
-2008: You covered 2008 earlier when you said he lost all the matches due to mono which magically appeared and disappeared depending on whether he won or lost.
-French and Wimby 2010
-AO+ French+ Wimby 2011
-AO 2012

So considering you have already excused him in 2008 you've only missed a few. Nearly there though, do keep trying.

Instead of turning this into another 'bickering' thread, can you at least try to keep it sensible. This is a great thread made by barrystar, dont spoil it please.

Bickering? Tell the guy to stop making nonsense excuses.

OK let's start with FO 2007 final. He won his semi final in straight sets, and played before Nadal so he had more resting time before the final.
In the final itself Nadal won the first set, then Federer won the second, before nadal took the final 2 sets.
Why was he tired?

YI Man, you must have me mistaken for a certain clique on this site with an agenda to hijack every single thread and talk about fitness and court conditions. Sorry, don't see the fairness in your critique. We continually see threads hijacked and ceasless and non-ending attacks on certain players, the court conditions, and fitness by some posters. If I respond to their innane chatter and debunk their attempts at myth-making then I am accused of bickering and hijacking threads?

Y I Man

But barrystar was clearly wrong. What can we do?

amritia3ee wrote:Bickering? Tell the guy to stop making nonsense excuses.

OK let's start with FO 2007 final. He won his semi final in straight sets, and played before Nadal so he had more resting time before the final.
In the final itself Nadal won the first set, then Federer won the second, before nadal took the final 2 sets.
Why was he tired?

OK now onto AO 2009. Apparently Fed also lost there because he was tired.
Federer played a day before Nadal. While Fed cruised the semi in straight sets Nadal had to deal with the longest match in AO history at the time- over 5 hours.
I don't see how we can agree that we can excuse his final loss against nadal on tiredness.

OK now onto US 2010.
He thrashed Soderling in straight sets in the quarter final, had 1 (or2?) days rest and in the semi against Djokovic his worst sets were sets number 2 and 4, not 5.
Why was he tired?
Edit: Can't be asked to cover the rest, but you get the idea.

OK let's make a deal then.
Tenez and co. can attack nadal, post hate messages and then make excuses for practically every defeat Fed has suffered.
As soon as another poster tries to say this is not the case, and imply that the opponent also deserves some credit for beating Federer he can be punished by the mods for 'bickering.'
That sounds fair.

Precisely, Amiritia do posts all day on threads that have nothing to do with court conditions, fitness, or Nadal attacking on all three counts an no one accuses you of bickering. If you address their silly arguments and disprove their nonsense now you are hijacking and bickering.

Yes, good to know we have a fair modding system on this site.
Perhaps this can be reflected by the number of regular Nadal fans on the site: 2

What a balanced fair forum this is

amritia3ee, socal

My post was a generic one, not directed at anyone in particular. I just want the nonsense that spoils every good thread on here to stop.

amritia3ee wrote:OK let's make a deal then.
Tenez and co. can attack nadal, post hate messages and then make excuses for practically every defeat Fed has suffered.
As soon as another poster tries to say this is not the case, and imply that the opponent also deserves some credit for beating Federer he can be punished by the mods for 'bickering.'
That sounds fair.

No deal.
The bickering and baiting nonsense stops or whoever does it can clear off to another site. Because I for one am sick of it!

amritia3ee wrote:Yes, good to know we have a fair modding system on this site.
Perhaps this can be reflected by the number of regular Nadal fans on the site: 2

What a balanced fair forum this is

Which is more than the number of Nole fans, and I am not complaining.
I know for a fact that all Federer fans think pretty much the same about Djokovic as they do Nadal.

They said so many times.

Unlike you, I have no problem accepting other people's opinions. Everyone's entitled to think what they like.

Simply grow up and stop being so defensive.

noleisthebest wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Yes, good to know we have a fair modding system on this site.
Perhaps this can be reflected by the number of regular Nadal fans on the site: 2

What a balanced fair forum this is

Which is more than the number of Nole fans, and I am not complaining.
I know for a fact that all Federer fans think pretty much the same about Djokovic as they do Nadal.

They said so many times.

Unlike you, I have no problem accepting other people's opinions. Everyone's entitled to think what they like.

Simply grow up and stop being so defensive.

What are you on about? There was a mass celebration on this site when Djokovic won the AO final. No one says anything against Djokovic.

But according to you Nadal is the 'death of tennis' so I don't know who i'm arguing against here.

Yes YI Man but my point is that it will always look like the ones who defend Nadal are starting the bickering.

The thread will start normally on topic. Then some Fed fans/Nadal hatahs will randomly go off-topic and post either hate messages against nadal or nonsense excuses taking credit away from practically every person who has beaten Federer in the past 6 years. But this is not bickering is it, it's only bickering when you have more than 1 opinion.
Only when the nadal fans or neutrals come in and try to either defend nadal against these allegations or don't accept that 'all of Federer's losses in grand slams in the past 6 years have come due to tiredness' they will be accused of bickering. Is this fair?

I mean firstly look at the numbers of Nadal fans on the site currently. I've heard rumours that earlier in the summer this was a really balanced forum, where the nadal fans equalled, if not slightly outnumbered, fans of other players. But due to the constant relentless aggressive behaviour of Nadal hatahs towards nadal fans and Nadal himself there are only 2-3 regular Nadal posters left. At max.

It isn't the fault of the Nadal fans, or other neutrals, for replying, it's the constant relentless hating towards certain players that is to blame. Apparently these days being a nadal fans means you are 'not a true fan of tennis.' Is this fair?

Just for the record I am neither a Nadal or a fed fan. And I don't have any problem accepting that a majority of posters like federer more than my favorite player or dislike Nadal. But when people spew nonsesne in support of a position that makes no sense, I tend to challenge them on it. People can say whatever they like and I reserve the right to dispute them. Everyone has a right to express themselves and disagree, I don't see it is bickering.

amritia3ee wrote:Yes YI Man but my point is that it will always look like the ones who defend Nadal are starting the bickering.

The thread will start normally on topic. Then some Fed fans/Nadal hatahs will randomly go off-topic and post either hate messages against nadal or nonsense excuses taking credit away from practically every person who has beaten Federer in the past 6 years.

I beg to differ.

Nice job Raider of ducking my post. Funny, it is the fed fans who continually bring up court conditions and Roger's tiredness issues

Don't worry if you continue successfully making logical points they'll then accuse you of 'not debating in the right spirit' or not being a 'real tennis fan.'

I find there weird fixation with big balls, slow tennis courts, and fitness most amusing.

Nearly there though, do keep trying.

according to you Nadal is the 'death of tennis' so I don't know who i'm arguing against here.

And those are just within the last few posts on this thread!
But of course, its only the Nadal haters/ fed fans who are to blame!

This section is going to get a kick up the backside to get things in order. If you cant debate reasonably and without the nonsense, then I suggest v2 is not for you.

I want this section to become a massive success and grow.
At the moment with the garbage that is being posted that aint gonna happen any time soon.

Y I Man wrote:
But of course, its only the Nadal haters/ fed fans who are to blame!

Is that sarcastic?
I assume you now think they are all innocent.

Interesting you managed to quote me and Social for apparently saying disgraceful comments (even though none of them were even that bad, and quoting it without context makes the quotes seem much worse than they really are) but haven't quoted anyone else apart from me and Social, no Nadal haters at all.

You are completely missing the point.
Everyone is to blame. The ones doing the baiting and the ones making the sly digs and remarks in reply.

Perhaps if we had no hate messages or nonsensical excuses I wouldn't reply.

or you could simply not reply in that manner then thats half the problem solved?
But if you are incapable, then this forum is not for you.

on a sidenote liverpool won!!! england 1-1 wales

What manner do you want me to reply?
You know I get annoyed against the relentless hate Nadal gets.

Can you confirm what i have heard, that at one point there was a balance on this site. Before I started posting on 606v2 i was able to contact many nadal fans who used to use this site and they told me that the nadal fans left the forum as the hate he received was intolerable to the extent it was not worth the nadal fans even staying here anymore.
Anyway all i know for sure is that there are barely any nadal fans left, unfortunately Lydian said even he would use this site less regularly due to this, and after i leave this means there will only be 1 regular-user Nadal fan left. 1

Does it really matter what happened previously amritia3ee?
There have been other members (neutral fans) leave because of the constant bickering and arguing. Members leave, members join. Its part of forum life. All I can do is try to keep the existing members here and try to sort out the issues that exist now, not go over what happened a year ago.

Anyways, we are way off topic.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, please do so via pm with me.

Y I Man wrote:Does it really matter what happened previously amritia3ee?

Well its happening here and happening now. Only a few nadal fans remain, barely 2, compared to loads of nadal haters. The hate makes it practically intolerable for nadal fans, hence only a few remain.
The constant 'bickering' is provoked by the Nadal haters with their comments. I, however will admit that i get annoyed at these rather easily and respond in an irritated manner.
But just because I am a Nadal fan does not mean I only appreciate his success, I acknowledge there are many great players playing including a brilliant top 4 we have currently.
Anyway now back on topic.

All I can do is try to keep the existing members here and try to sort out the issues that exist now

The only issues are Nadal fans refusing to take light hearted jokes, Djokovic and Federer fans seem to deal with jokes at their players expense much better than Ra-fans.

Well when its a joke its fine. It's just the relentless one sided hate.
For example I never respond angrily to what you say as i know you are probably joking. Well apart from that time in December when you claimed that 'Fed always dominates Nadal on outdoor HC' or something. Were you joking? Maybe.

socal1976 wrote:
Have to echo Amiritia and Hawkeye here. Big serve tennis is so dull.

We are splitting hairs now between, Karlovic (from 155mph = 250 km/h) to Nadal (130+mph = 209 km/h) (USO 2010).

From AO 2012...

Djokovic-Nadal

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html

Fastest Serve Speed 202 KMH 204 KMH
Average 1st Serve Speed 190 KMH 183 KMH
Average 2nd Serve Speed 150 KMH 136 KMH

From FO 2011

Nadal-Federer

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/stats/day20/1701ms.html

Fastest Serve Speed 204 KMH 208 KMH
Average 1st Serve Speed 172 KMH 192 KMH
Average 2nd Serve Speed 143 KMH 157 KMH


Nadal-Isner

http://2011.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/stats/day8/1101ms.html

Fastest Serve Speed 210 KMH 232 KMH
Average 1st Serve Speed 181 KMH 207 KMH
Average 2nd Serve Speed 146 KMH 171 KMH

From USO 2011

Djokovic-Nadal

http://2011.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

Fastest Serve Speed 203km/h (126 MPH) 206 km/h (128 MPH)
Average 1st Serve Speed 179 km/h (111 MPH) 172 km/h 107 MPH
Average 2nd Serve Speed 138 km/h (86 MPH) 130 km/h(81 MPH)


From Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves

Notice how many records are in in 2000+ vs. 1970-2000?

socal1976 wrote:I really like the modern power baseline game. Yes it takes speed and fitness so what this is world class sport that should have world class athletes. But it is the point construction and combination of good defens and offense that we have today that is gripping.

Even if they need chairs at the end of the match.

socal1976 wrote:And the fans agree, I don't ever see the fans standing up and giving an ovation 135 mile an hour ace up the T. But after some of these long points with great gets the fans literally stand up and give a standing Ovation.

Is a 'standing ovation' now a measure of point construction, Socal? I can dig up hundreds of videos during the S&V days, where there are such ovations. Do you really want me to?

socal1976 wrote:Maybe we could experiment with conditions, slightly at some smaller events and see how it impacts play. Maybe add a grass court masters to incentivize variety.

It cannot be done. Do you want the TDs to give up their prime matchups and ticket sales for an upset where seed 229 beats the top seed, just because there is a variation in the surface speed. People still watched Tennisin 2000-2007, even if Nadal or Djokovic did not make it to the finals.

socal1976 wrote:Wimbeldon in the late 90s was basically unwatchable for me.

Borg-McEnroe on grass with S&V - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16O_V_Gjw4

Borg-Lendl on clay with baseline - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

There are players who can switch between the two very successfully. That is called a varying game. Just watch the 2011/2012 Slams finals and let me know if you see such variations.

Also, remember to each his own.

socal1976 wrote:The slower conditions have made for great matches like Fed and Nadal 07 and 08 and Roddick-Fed 09. 3 straight years the slowed conditions resulted in epic finals all three of these finals were better than basically any final we got in the speedy court 90s.

... so have fast conditions.... see the Borg link.

Also here....

Sampras 1997 W - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f6T5PeYzsA

Sampras 1995 AO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyrALjicZnA

Fast conditions also make up for good matches. They are not mutually exclusive.

Viewing figures are going up Laverfan.
People like seeing the big guns face each other in the latter stages of Grand Slams.
And even without the brilliant top 4 we have players like Del Potro, Tsonga and Berdych- i would rate all 3 above Ljubicic.

amritia3ee wrote:Viewing figures are going up Laverfan.

The bigger the stadium, with a roof on top, the more upkeep.. The larger the prize money, the larger the ticket prizes, or TV broadcasts rights.

Just as a curiosity, find out the average ticket price at W in 1980s and 2010s and adjust it for inflation (since you live in London). Then we can discuss this further. Corporate hospitality suites, anyone?

amritia3ee wrote:People like seeing the big guns face each other in the latter stages of Grand Slams.

You are repeating what I said about TDs.

amritia3ee wrote:And even without the brilliant top 4 we have players like Del Potro, Tsonga and Berdych- i would rate all 3 above Ljubicic.

That is why Ljubicic played in Marseilles while 3 (all semifinalists from AO 2012) of the top 4 took a vacation from their exertions at AO 2012.

Jesus is saving them all. ( NiTB).

H2H

Tsonga-Ljuby 3-3
Berdych-Ljuby 2-3
JMDP-Ljuby 1-1

Yes Tsonga, Del Potro and JMDP are all quite inconsistent. However on their day they can beat anyone, even the big guns. (Tsonga AO 2008) (JDMP US 2009) (Berdych Wimby 2010).
Ljubicic did not even reach a slam semi-final.

amritia3ee wrote:Yes Tsonga, Del Potro and JMDP are all quite inconsistent. However on their day they can beat anyone, even the big guns. (Tsonga AO 2008) (JDMP US 2009) (Berdych Wimby 2010).
Ljubicic did not even reach a slam semi-final.

You mean, apart from the French Open 2006?

Oops. I meant final

Still only 1 semi. And who exactly did he beat to get to that semi?

The highest ranked player Ljubicic had to beat to get to the semi was the world number 79.
Utter joke

Berdych's lowest ranked player he had to face in the AO, where he got to the semi was the world number 67, 12 places higher than the highest ranked player Ljubicic had to face. Utter and complete joke.

amritia3ee wrote:Oops. I meant final

Still only 1 semi. And who exactly did he beat to get to that semi?

Crikey, are we now going to have to check the record of every slam semi-finalist/finalist/winner to check it's 'valid'?

You'll be saying next that 3 of Sampras' Wimby titles are a 'joke' because he didn't play anyone in the top 15, or
Rafa's 2005 FO is a 'joke' because he only played 1 player in the top 20 and that player had never got past the FO 3rd round before.

Seriously - are you going to do a validity check on every Open Era slam, in the interests of fairness? Or are you just going to pick on Ljubicic?

Can you imagine that. Berdych's lowest ranked player he had to face was still 12 ranking places higher than the highest ranked player Ljubicic had to face.
And Berdych put up a challenge against nadal, winning the first set.
Also Berdych has shown he can beat the top guns, he has beaten Federer + djokovic at wimbledon remember, but he is still ranked 7.
Ljubicic meanwhile was number 3, after he beat a few players outside the top 100 reached a semi-final. Thank goodness Nadal could play well on clay at the time (he hadn't yet acclimatised to HC fully yet) to stop another joke final similar to Baghdatis vs Federer.

Some slams maybe more valid than others...

Yes.
For example Nadal winning the FO in 2008 is worth much more than his 2005 title.
At least nadal had to face the number 1 seed in Federer in 2006+6 FO, in 2006 Fed won the title playing only 1 player in the top 20, and he wasn't even top 4.

Ok - can someone please rank all slams in the Open era in order of 'ease' please. Should be fairly easy from what people have been saying.

Just done some research and i must say apart from Federer, nadal's route in FO 2005 was an absolute joke. At least he faced a great player in Federer in the semis, so the slam does have some value i suppose.
2006 was better where had to face 2 top 10 players, including the number 1 seed. He also faced Djokovic, so 2006 was a much more valuable win.

And yes of course some slams/slam finals can be more valuable than other Julius. For example in 2010 Berdych beat Federer and Djokovic to get to the Wimby final! We can compare to this to US Open 2006 when Roddick reached the final, but lost to the first top 15 player he played!

Rules not enforced....

https://imgur.com/1XNwo

Socal... I would prefer either that the rule be changed, or it be enforced. You can have rallies and 'point construction' as long as the players want.

BTW, this is not point construction, is it? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ok - can someone please rank all slams in the Open era in order of 'ease' please.

Do you actually want me to do that Julius? I can tell you one thing, Nadal 2005 wouldn't be too high in terms of competition, if not for the fact he beat the number 1 seed in the semi it would be one of the lowest ones. I can't do the whole Open Era- that would take too much time. Perhaps from 2004?

amritia3ee wrote:And yes of course some slams/slam finals can be more valuable than other Julius. For example in 2010 Berdych beat Federer and Djokovic to get to the Wimby final! We can compare to this to US Open 2006 when Roddick reached the final, but lost to the first top 15 player he played!

Then I await your list of slams/slam finals since 1969, ranked in order of ease. If not, why not?
And then ask yourself if people in 50 years will be ranking Wimby 2010 or FO 2006? Or whether they'll treat them in much the same way as we treat the slams in the 1970s/1980s i.e. they'll all have the same value.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ok - can someone please rank all slams in the Open era in order of 'ease' please.

Do you actually want me to do that Julius? I can tell you one thing, Nadal 2005 wouldn't be too high in terms of competition, if not for the fact he beat the number 1 seed in the semi it would be one of the lowest ones. I can't do the whole Open Era- that would take too much time. Perhaps from 2004?

2004-2011? Perhaps do 1984 to 1991 instead.

i wrote an article on that subject a while back after novaks aussie win this year. http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.com/2012/01/greatest-grand-slam-achievement.html?showComment=1328028324601#c4035234013559679283

it went as far back as connors i think! check it out