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.

Laverfan if you watched Djokovic circa 06 and 07 when he started to make a big splash to Djokovic today you would see a great deal of improvement in a lot of areas. He doesn't get enough credit for how he has recovered on the serve or how his forehand seems to keep getting better. Return wise 48 percent right now at breaking his opposition after the AO.

But there is a world difference having teh serve back to the time he was number 3 to dominating H&S the 2 who used to beat him even when he had a good serve.

We saw again in the AO final, like in the USO that it's his fitness that allowed him to beat Nadal and not his serve. The serve making the difference is another myth from Socal I am afraid.

Reading through this thread it has had everything that an epic film has had. Laughter and tears.

Back to the topic. Take into account that Nadal has been a regular top 1/2 in the rankings since 2005. Roger since 2007 has held 1,2,3 and even 4 rankings and Rafa even when injured held onto his ranking in 2nd place, Federer was number 2 until February 2011. Shy of an 8 year dominance in the top 2 of the world. Rafa himself is coming upto a 7 year spell of being in the top 2 and I can see him stretching it further. I could see Nadal even making it 10 years in the top 2.

If we talk about record preservation, for Federer fans it must be reassuring seeing Djokovic's hold on Nadal. A small concern would be if Nadal started to get the better of Djokovic and that would see Nadal possibly challenging Roger's Grand Slam haul of 16.

My question to OP would be what would be said of this era if Nadal was able to surpass Roger's record of Slams despite lack of time as the no.1 ranked player?

On the topic in response to lk:

* Nadal has been at No. 3 and No. 4 during 2009 and 2010 so he has not had an unbroken period in the top 2 since 2005. Fed's unbroken period in the top 2 was from November 2003 to July 2010 - Nadal would need to stay in the top 2 for another 5 years to overhaul that which I don't think is very likely. Fed has spent 52 odd weeks longer in the top 2 than Nadal thus far, but of course he's been around for longer and the gap is narrowing every week at the moment.

* Nadal has 7 slams to win to overtake Federer assuming the latter has won his last slam. If Nadal has 3 more years as a slam winner that's at least 2 slams a year, if he has 4 more years as a slam winner thats an average of nearly 2 slams a year, even over 5 more years that is an average of more than one slam a year. Nadal is hardly likely to make the slam record on any of those strike rates without regaining No. 1 for a decent chunk of time.

* If Nadal finishes with more slams than Fed it's pretty clear that he'd have had a substantially longer overall period in the top 2 as well as having increased quite substantially his time at No. 1 so far. Winning a slam is arguably less difficult than getting to No. 1 so there might be room for argument about their respective overall merits and we'd need to see both careers in the round - but of course Nadal would have a decent claim to have edged ahead of Fed in the overall reckoning.

* I hope, and I think we've seen some recent evidence in support, that Murray will start to put pressure on the top 2 in the near future.

* For me the thing with Nadal is that he relies more heavily on his speed and physical fitness to win matches than Federer does, especially on hard (Nadal pretty much says that himself). A marginal drop in those factors is likely to be more adverse to his prospects than the ageing process has been so far to Federer. The risk is that Nadal's mileage and injury record means that he could lose his edge in the next 2 years, whereupon I'd expect him to fall pretty quickly from being a slam contender, perhaps a bit like Jim Courier did. Nadal has made a monkey of such predictions in the past, especially in 2009 - the difference now is that he is 3 years older.

give nadal federer's physique and the man from manacor would not be biting any grandslam trophies in his whole career. just fortunate in his genes.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:give nadal federer's physique and the man from manacor would not be biting any grandslam trophies in his whole career. just fortunate in his genes.

Ain't that the way with pretty much any successful sportsman - they must all owe something to their genes.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:give nadal federer's physique and the man from manacor would not be biting any grandslam trophies in his whole career. just fortunate in his genes.

What would prevent Nadal (with Federer's physique) from playing a Federesque game and still be close to Federer?

laverfan wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:give nadal federer's physique and the man from manacor would not be biting any grandslam trophies in his whole career. just fortunate in his genes.

What would prevent Nadal (with Federer's physique) from playing a Federesque game and still be close to Federer?

Talent?

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:give nadal federer's physique and the man from manacor would not be biting any grandslam trophies in his whole career. just fortunate in his genes.

What would prevent Nadal (with Federer's physique) from playing a Federesque game and still be close to Federer?

Talent?

balls, brains and culture.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:balls, brains and culture.

Said the pathologist to the nurse.

Tenez wrote:But there is a world difference having teh serve back to the time he was number 3 to dominating H&S the 2 who used to beat him even when he had a good serve.

We saw again in the AO final, like in the USO that it's his fitness that allowed him to beat Nadal and not his serve. The serve making the difference is another myth from Socal I am afraid.

No more mythmaking from Tenez as usual. It isn't just his serve or his fitness. As I explained and as Novak himself has said in interviews, which excerpts of I have posted on this site some time ago. His serve in 2010 was barely in the top 50 in hold percentage he was the only guy anywhere near the top that had more double faults than aces. Tenez you are the one taking an extreme position holding that only his fitness has been material to his success. He is much different player in 2012 than in 2010 and it isn't solely his fitness, he has improved in a number of areas. In fact, the timeline of his going back to his new serve basically coincides with his resurgence at the tail end of 2010, starting with semi at wimby, finals at USO, and win in Davis cup. Without his improved serve he would have a very difficult time winning a slam with the serve he had in early 2010 and 2009. For someone who is so self described as astute in picking up the technical fine points I am stunned that you missed out on 2 year serving slump Djoko went into when in A WELL PUBLICIZED MOVE HE CHANGED his serve motion with disastrous effects.

Tenez wrote:Talent?

If it is a divine gift, we are going into a different debate now.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:balls, brains and culture

As JHM says about the pathologist-cum-nurse (), Renee nee Richard Rasking had 'balls' that he gave up , but retained the brains. Regarding Culture, not sure what you mean, so a clarification may help.

Socal lets put it this way, Djoko is a massive talent, and everybody do like him more than hate him.

He is certainly on the right track, if he goes on doing what he did on 2011 for 3-4 years he will end up with that tag u place him [GOAT], but till then anything else is premature.

You need to respect Roger's and Rafa's achievement, and I know you do, and there is nothing called Weak or strong era. Roger at 30 is still competing with young guns like djokovic [like 6 yrs younger] at their prime, which itself says how great a player he is.

Invisiblecoolers I respect Roger and Rafa, appreciate what both have done for the sport. And I agree that any talk of grandslam runs and goathood is premature for Novak. I made that clear with my posts and I will reiterate that.

And about the weak era, first it is never easy to dominate the tour in any era. Maybe I am splitting hairs but I still believe that that we had a bit of doldrums between the late 90s and early 2000s. And I have provided mountains of evidence for the proposition on this site.

socal1976 wrote:....And I have provided mountains of evidence for the proposition (weak era) on this site.

You only see the mountains you want to see but I have seen/read mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise.

I can't believe this has gone on for 7 pages.

The answer is quite simple. Federer is older than Nadal.

hawkeye wrote:I can't believe this has gone on for 7 pages.

The answer is quite simple. Federer is older than Nadal.

4 years, 9 months, 27 days and some change.

Bump - I was reading the thread about Toni Nadal and how it was like 2007 again with the mention of poor old Dr. Sincere's premature spejaculation just before the end of the first set of the US Open final and I feld nostalgic and started digging around.

I know that this was originally my thread, but I thought that having compared their career trajectories looking at a 30-yr old Fed and a 25-yr old Nadal after the Australian Open in 2012, it is interesting to see how what has transpired compares to what people thought would happen over the next 5.5 years from that point (February 2012).  In some respects what might be termed the soft consensus has come to pass, but almost entirely for unanticipated reasons.  These two extraordinary athletes have, not for the first time, made fools of most predictions of their careers, and in particular predictions of their demises:

Correct

1. Whilst there was not a firm consensus, there was an expectation that over the next five years Nadal would struggle to match Federer's big career scores, and he looks no closer to overhauling Fed's numbers of (a) slam titles; (b) weeks at No. 1; and (c) overall titles.

2. Many predicted that Djokovic would prove to be an important part of disrupting the comparative Federer vs. Nadal slam tallies from February 2012 onwards - and they were right to an extent.....


Wrong

3. Djokovic's effect on the Fedal slam performance has been the exact opposite to what was predicted - after AO 2012 there was a consensus that Djoko would prove to be one of the mightiest barriers between Nadal and the slam record, but in the period since he has been a far greater barrier to Federer's tally than Nadal's:

(a) Djoko has met Nadal 5 times in slams, and Nadal has won 4:1 with 3 of his wins in finals;

(b) Djoko has met Federer 6 times in slams and he has won 5:1, 3 of his wins being finals.

4. Slams - nobody seemed to believe that this could happen:

(a) Nadal has gotten very close to Fed's target as it stood in February 2012 of 16 slams, he has added 5 to his tally since the beginning of 2012; but,

(b) Contrary to most people's expectations, Fed has moved the target on by winning another 3 slams.


5. ATP Tournaments - nobody seemed to believe this could happen:

(a) Nadal has won another 27 titles to be very close now to where Federer was at the beginning of 2012;

(b) Federer, in turn, has moved the bar to pretty much the same distance ahead as it was by winning another 26 titles, and in the process has put himself only one behind Lendl's career achievement of 94.

6. Finally, in a series of events so outlandish that nobody even thought to predict such a nonsensical outcome, and would have lost any right to be taken seriously by anyone else had they done so: Fedal have shared the first 3 slams, 4 of the first 5 Masters, and will be 1 & 2 in the ATP race at the beginning of August 2017.

Fascinating to see what was said five years ago and incredible that the Big 2 of the Big 4 are still right at the top and the subject of so much continuing interest.
   Wonder if we would have had this sort of Rafa-Rog great debate about Borg and McEnroe if the former had not jacked it in so early.

lol @ "spejaculation" barry

Some other stats:
Fed was 813 wins and 187 losses when he hits 1000 matches;
Rafa was 822 vs 178. Fed had 70 titles by then, Rafa had 69. Fed was 30 years 5 and half months old by then(mid way through AO2012); Rafa was 30 years 9 months old (Miami 2017).

Fed had won 6 WTFs, 18 Masters and 16 slams by then; Rafa has no WTF, 28 Masters and 14 slams.

Rafa > Fed from late teens to 22; Fed > Rafa from 23 to 30 esp where winning slam titles were concerned, but Rafa at 31 has won a slam so far whilst Fed didn't win any, from age 31 to 34.

Rafa was plagued with injuries and had to take injury breaks so he's no where near Fed's consistency in reaching consecutive slam QF (36) SF (23)and finals(10). Fed's 237 consecutive weeks at no.1 was unmatched by anyone. With the emergence of Djoko v2, Rafa's reign as no. 1 was shortened, and it was Djoko who looked the more likely one to match Fed's record 302 weeks at no.1 (Djoko currently at 223 weeks).

While Rafa may not match Fed's 302 weeks at no.1, I do feel it's looking likely that Rafa may exceed 200 weeks as no.1 in the rankings during his tennis career.

barrystar wrote: ....Wrong  3. Djokovic's effect on the Fedal slam performance has been the exact opposite to what was predicted - after AO 2012 there was a consensus that Djoko would prove to be one of the mightiest barriers between Nadal and the slam record, but in the period since he has been a far greater barrier to Federer's tally than Nadal's:

(a) Djoko has met Nadal 5 times in slams, and Nadal has won 4:1 with 3 of his wins in finals;

(b) Djoko has met Federer 6 times in slams and he has won 5:1, 3 of his wins being finals.   ...

It's the Clay thing again.  Nadal having all conquering clay seasons 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2017 beating everyone but then being beaten before reaching Djokovic (in general) on grass and the hard courts.  Djokovic's biggest effect on Nadal's record has been on the Number of Weeks at Number One and the hard court as well as clay court non-slam titles.

So since AO 2012 but excluding 2017 we have the following head to head counts
Djokovic vs Nadal
clay: 5:5
Hard: 7:2
Djokovic vs Federer
clay: 3:1
grass: 2:1
hard: 9:6

Have skim read thru all seven pages. Plenty of bickering, I noticed. Interesting to see some of the predictions. B'star and Socal reckoned there was no chance of Fed (now on 93 titles) overtaking Lendl's record of 94 titles.
   I said back then I thought Rog might chalk up 900 total match wins. But I clearly did not foresee the storming, victory-strewn years of 2014 and 2015, with Fed now past 1,100 and counting.
   One poster - Illuminated Colours or some such - reckoned Fed had four more GS wins in him, although I bet he didn't think two of them would come as late as 2017.
   There was some talk generally of Djoko putting in enough weeks at number one to prevent Rafa catching Fed in total weeks.
   Also, some posters back then saw Raonic as one of the guys who could seriously challenge the big boys. The big Canadian has done well since, but can only look back on one GS final.
   Perhaps a new topic could be started to see where everyone thinks Murray and Djoko will be in five years time.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:

While Rafa may not match Fed's 302 weeks at no.1, I do feel it's looking likely that Rafa may exceed 200 weeks as no.1 in the rankings during his tennis career.

I'd say he has absolutely no chance whatsoever of matching 302 weeks - that would involve more than doubling the amount of time he has spent at No. 1 thus far, starting aged 31 when it has taken him 9 years since 2008 to amass the impressive 141 weeks he has already spent at No. 1.  I think that another 60 weeks would be a push too, but not impossible.  It will be fascinating to see how he does through the forthcoming Hard Court season - whether he can resurrect the success of 2010 or 2013 or a relative fade/injury hit end of the year like pretty much all the other years he has spent on tour.  

I am now going to wheel out my broken record - each year thus far in which Nadal has got to the Australian Open final he has finished with a disappointing July-October (2009, 2012, 2014).  We'll see - I v. much hope he and Fed are injury free to see what they can do.

It is inevitable that one, or both, of them will make #1 at some stage this year.  Nadal is the favourite to make it first, whether Federer can overhaul him is likely to depend upon relative performances at Cincinnati/US Open.  Also, I would expect Nadal to be more likely to play Canada than Federer, so he may consolidate his ATP Race lead over Federer there.

sirfredperry wrote:
   Perhaps a new topic could be started to see where everyone thinks Murray and Djoko will be in five years time.

What are you waiting for....?

Rafa from age 19 to 22 -- won 6 slams (including AO2009); Fed won 3.
Rafa from 23-30 -- won 8 slams; Fed won 14.

Its interesting to compare Djoko to Fedal too, at least during his dominant five to six years, from 2011 to 2016. Djoko had won 11 slams from AO2011 to FO2016, i.e. 11 out of 22 played. Fed had won 14 out of 23 from AO2004 to Winbledon 2009. Rafa had also won 11 out of 22 played during his hey days from FO2008 to FO2014 ( he missed 3 slams during that period due to injuries).

Djoko is also approaching his 1000 matches, and it's looking likely that he'll have more wins and fewer losses at 1000 matches than Fedal. He has 5 WTF, 30 Masters and 12 slams now; he may or may not add to that by the time he reaches 1000 matches.

Djoker is a busted flush right now though.

reckoner wrote:Djoker is a busted flush right now though.

Some caution perhaps, reckoner ........

How long are you writing him off for ?

Let's see how he performs over the remaining months of the season, and then into 2018. What if his injuries turn out to be manageable, and it all starts to come together for him .........?

Oh you and your caution lags, tsk.

It'll take a good 6 months for Djoko to sort out his coaching team, his marriage, his elbow, his mind. I'm being very conservative with that estimate.

sirfredperry wrote:... Perhaps a new topic could be started to see where everyone thinks Murray and Djoko will be in five years time.

Andy Murray's career at elite level may already be over - given his hip problem and the fact that Murray reckons he only has a few years left in him at most - and won't be doing a Federer.  

With Djokovic there are two issues - one is his "elbow" injury which he claims has been affecting him for 18 months - and the need to create a new coaching - support team.

NNB,

Rafa did meet Djoko regularly on the HCs during 2012-2016; he was absent during second half HC seasons in 2012 and 2014 due to injuries. He was also absent from AO2013 due to his long injury break from 2012.

Djoko himself had sometimes not made it to meet Rafa too on the HCs - IW2013, Cincy 2013, AO2014. They rarely met on grass as Rafa was beaten early since 2012, but, it's not always that the big four got to meet each other at Wimbledon. Djoko and Murray met once there only, in 2013(Djoko did meet at beat Rafa there in 2011 final). Murray/Fed met twice; its only Djoko vs Fed that had met there regularly (thrice in five years).

Ok, I could be wide of the mark as regards Djoko's prospects in the immediate to short-term. We won't have long to find out !

I was going to suggest that this is André's big chance to show us what he can do for his money. Then I remembered him saying in a recent interview that he has agreed to offer his services to Novak purely "on my own dime" - from which I guess we can safely assume there is no contractual arrangement, and no specific commitment on either side.

Barrystar,

Rafa is fit and healthy this year, and he barely broke a sweat during the clay season. He had his injuries in all those years that you mentioned, and struggled through the clay season (except 2012, though he lost early on blue clay at Madrid). He's also playing shorter points even on clay, so physically he should be less exhausted; I doubt he will have any of those issues that he had in the past.

I remember many were saying back in 2012 after Fed won his Wimbledon, that Rafa( and Djoko and Murray) won't be playing top class tennis when they're of Fed's age then, in five to six years time. Many were saying Rafa would be too injured and would be retired by the time he's 30 or over.

Rafa is not done yet, after five years have past since 2012 and Rafa is now at an age similar to Fed in 2012. Rafa has won a slam and reaches another final, and he's leading the race and may get back to no.1 soon. In fact, his 2017 has panned out so far to be quite similar to his own 2012, except that he's slightly better at Wimbledon and he's also not injured, i.e. he's fit and healthy.

The Djoko of 2012 was in quite a similar position as Fed now, except Djoko didn't win at IW and lost in the SF of Wimbledon. Back then it was s three horses race but Rafa got injured and had to skip the rest of the season after Wimbledon. Right now it's Djoko who looked the injured one, and he's no where near his best and is not challenging Fedal.

Here's a stat for you.

Rafael Nadal is aged 31 years and 1.5 months, and has won 15 slams.

At that age Roger Federer had 17 slams. (Now 19.)

Still now completely over that race.

Novak Djokovic, to achieve the same slams as Rafa (15) at the same age, needs to win the next three.

Here is a slam chart comparison for Fed/Rafa/Nole/Andy that I had shown before and now updated through Wimbledon:



As was mentioned here, Rafa started out of the blocks faster than Fed but could not quite keep up through their mid and late 20s.  He is now two slams short of where Fed was at his age, but entering the period where Fed did not win anything for a few years.  So Rafa can potentially close the gap - assuming he is able to keep winning now that he is 31.

summerblues wrote:... He is now two slams short of where Fed was at his age, but entering the period where Fed did not win anything for a few years.  So Rafa can potentially close the gap - assuming he is able to keep winning now that he is 31.

There is no Djokovic (elbow injury, mentally gone, threw away his winning coaching - support team) nor Andy Murray (hip injury - possibly career threatening) to oppose him - so as long as he maintains his health he should be able to pick up 1 or 2 slams a year for the next few years.

Before writing Murray off lets just remember he has had a lengthy spell out through back surgery before and returned to win a slam, Davis Cup and WTF as well as reaching No 1.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Before writing Murray off lets just remember he has had a lengthy spell out through back surgery before and returned to win a slam, Davis Cup and WTF as well as reaching No 1.

My view is that this is likely a career ending issue. I think it requires surgery and Murray's future prospects will depend on the outcome of that surgery. What I suspect he will do is not go for surgery and try short term patch jobs to carry on. He says himself he is unlikely to do a Federer and he was suggesting he had about two years left at the top level. That was said in the run-up to Wimbledon 2017 when the severity of Murray's hip issue (then just a concern) had not come to light. That he was able to somehow reach the QF just indicates how good Murray is at "winging" his way to victory. But it looks like without actually properly treating the issue it is not going to go away and will get worse. Murray has to also think about his post-professional tennis situation. He doesn't want to be walking around with a limp for the rest of his life.

No name Bertie wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Before writing Murray off lets just remember he has had a lengthy spell out through back surgery before and returned to win a slam, Davis Cup and WTF as well as reaching No 1.

My view is that this is likely a career ending issue.  I think it requires surgery and Murray's future prospects will depend on the outcome of that surgery.  What I suspect he will do is not go for surgery and try short term patch jobs to carry on.  He says himself he is unlikely to do a Federer and he was suggesting he had about two years left at the top level.  That was said in the run-up to Wimbledon 2017 when the severity of Murray's hip issue (then just a concern) had not come to light.  That he was able to somehow reach the QF just indicates how good Murray is at "winging" his way to victory.  But it looks like without actually properly treating the issue it is not going to go away and will get worse.  Murray has to also think about his post-professional tennis situation.  He doesn't want to be walking around with a limp for the rest of his life.

Actually, watch an interview he did with BBC during Wimbledon and he spoke of having a fair few years left in him and spoke of perhaps entering Wimbledon doubles one year after he has done with singles with his brother Jamie.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing the Murray Brothers competing for slam titles. Maybe that is the way forward for Andy if he is protecting a hip issue. Andy has achieved more than most anyone could have expected - and we are now only really recognising that he has been "unlucky" to be competing in an era of three all time greats. I quite enjoyed following Heather Watson's and Kontinen's progress in the mixed doubles at Wimbledon. I can't watch women's tennis because of all the shrieking - but the mixed doubles was something I found entertaining and watchable.

No name Bertie wrote:I actually wouldn't mind seeing the Murray Brothers competing for slam titles.  Maybe that is the way forward for Andy if he is protecting a hip issue.  Andy has achieved more than most anyone could have expected - and we are now only really recognising that he has been "unlucky" to be competing in an era of three all time greats.  I quite enjoyed following Heather Watson's and Kontinen's progress in the mixed doubles at Wimbledon.  I can't watch women's tennis because of all the shrieking - but the mixed doubles was something I found entertaining and watchable.

Well I say lets just wait and see before writing his career obituary.

He has visited a specialist on hip injuries in Switzerland for advice etc and is now assessing his next move. It may mean he takes a few months out for treatment (if it is needed) or it may be that it just needs extended rest. Either way his participation in the final slam of the season must be in great doubt. At least it looks certain he'll surpass Nastase's run of 40 consecutive weeks at No 1 and putting him 14th on all-time list for most weeks at No 1.

Whatever he decides I hope he returns physically in full working order and not still carrying this problem.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

....................

Actually, watch an interview he did with BBC during Wimbledon and he spoke of having a fair few years left in him and spoke of perhaps entering Wimbledon doubles one year after he has done with singles with his brother Jamie.

And even more recently ....... Mum Judy was the guest on BBC's cookery show 'Saturday Kitchen' just yesterday morning.

She said that she had 'heard the boys' talking between themselves about pairing up for doubles on what could be a regular basis (but certainly at Wimbledon) once Andy feels he is no longer a serious contender for singles titles.  

Her appearance yesterday was of course in a non-tennis, very relaxed, setting - and not one where you would expect to hear any major revelations. But Judy seemed in very upbeat mood, and there was no hint at all from her that Andy's current issue is necessarily career-threatening.

From first slam to age about 28/29, Rafa has a slower winning rate while Federer starts later and has a faster winning rate to age 28/29 before dropping off. Although both seem to maintain a fairly constant winning rate from first slam to 28/29.