Can Rafael Nadal match Roger Federer's mark of 16 Grand Slam singles titles?

Sampras won four titles after he turned 26. Federer won five. Lendl six.
Can Rafael Nadal catch Roger Federer?

Faust wrote:Sampras won four titles after he turned 26. Federer won five. Lendl six.
Can Rafael Nadal catch Roger Federer?

No.

In a word, yes.

Anyone would be silly to consider arguing against.

Unlikely. Nadal needs to win another slam this year just to keep up. Ideally he then needs to win 2 next year (compared to the 1 Fed won at the same age) because the following year (2009 for Fed, would be 2014 for Nadal), Fed won 2 slams. Then Nadal would need another one in 2015 when he's 29.

If he wants to catch Fed or overtake him, he needs probably another one this year and ideally 2 again in 2013 and then another 2 in 2014. That only takes him level. With Djokovic around I think it's tough, but if he can win another slam this year, he's in decent shape to get close. Overtake though? A step too far. He needs two slams he can rely on regularly to get him close, he has RG but what's the other one? Fed had Wimbledon & the USO.

You might add that Agassi won 5 after he turned 26 - in fact he won all 5 after he turned 29.

To do it I think that Nadal needs to win Wimbledon or USO this year, and preferably both. If he finishes 2012 on 11 slams I don't think he can do it, even if he finishes 2012 on 12 slams I think he's up against it.

Unlike all the other great champions mentioned Nadal's standout best surface is clay (7/11 slam wins so far). This gives rise to a double disadvantage: (a) there's only one clay slam a year (b) clay court slam winners tend to be young.

If he continues making finals then yes. This is his 5th straight slam final and he we are going to Wimbledon where he has been the best player since 2008 so we will wait to see. Things can change quickly and out of no where he could win the last 2 slams this year. Federer unfortunately will now need Djokovic as an ally

It is hard to see beyond Djokovic who can challenge Nadal on Clay and even then it is not a certainty that he would beat Nadal at RG. For me Nadal has another 4 RG's in him.

I could see him picking up 2 Wimbledons and another Hardcourt slam.

If he is making the adjustment to his racquet weight, it is only time that he will get to grips with faster conditions.

Possible, but I think the odds are against. This match showed that he's going to be second favourite against Djokovic elsewhere and it's tough doing it on RG alone.

When alls said and done, it's only 4 away from clay all career.

I think the sad thing is that beyond Djokovic being favourite for other surfaces, that Nadal is a shoe in second.

It would require a monumental effort from the Murray's, Delpo's and Berdych's of this world to make it more competitive.

Worth remembering that if he is going to overhaul Fed or come close, this year and the next is crucial. He's 26 and it's shown that once you hit 27/28, the chances of winning slams drops off significantly. So age is most certainly an important factor which come into play more next year rather than this year.

Disagree LK, Nadal get another 4 RG titles? Rather unlikely. He may get another 1 or 2 but certainly not 4. I'd love to know how many players have won RG at the age of 30, as he would need to if he was to win another 4!

Disagree LK, Nadal get another 4 RG titles? Rather unlikely. He may get another 1 or 2 but certainly not 4. I'd love to know how many players have won RG at the age of 30, as he would need to if he was to win another 4!

Point me in the direction of players younger than 26 who have a chance to beat Nadal on Clay

Sooner or later Andy Murray will step up and win his first Grand Slam major final, resigning Rafael Nadal to no more Grand Slam titles just like what happened to John McEnroe after Ivan Lendl won his first major in 1984.

Over the next 18 months Djoko is key - in the last two years only he has stood between Nadal and having 14 wins in the bank and looking to the next 4-6 slams he is likely to be the most consistent challenger (hopefully Murray may improve, and there's Del Boy and Raionic too).

Looked at in a historical context the charts below suggest that Nadal is statistically up against it. In the open era only Laver and Agassi have had multiple slam-winning years after the age of 27. Nadal probably needs to win 4 out of the next 6 slams to do it, but he's never achieved a strike rate like that before: has won 2 out of the last 6 slams, he won 3 out of the 6 slams immediately prior to that, and 3 out of the 6 slams prior to that.

For the wider historical viewpoint these are interesting comparisons:

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_age.html
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/mw_slam_ages.GIF
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/mw_winner_age1.GIF

The answer is yes, it depends on how Fed , Murray, Djoko and the outsiders like Del Po, Tsonga and Berdych perform.

I certainly see him close to 14, anything beyond that is still possible, unless Fed raise the bar by a few sat like 2-3 more its more than achievable by Rafa.

Yes, it is very possible. Had it not been for the Djokovic run, Rafa could already be on 13 slams. I would say that only Djokovic, or a resurgent Federer who rediscovers the form that won him six wimbledon titles could challenge Rafa. However, Roger seems to have problems progressing beyond the quarterfinal stage in recent years (perhaps RG and Wimby are too close together for him), and so it does not seem like a huge possibility. Novak, if he can serve well and maintain his excellent return game, can have a shot.

I'm sure we had this discussion last year when Nadal won RG and it's a bit of a false dawn in some respects. Of course anything is possible while Nadal still remains fit and continues to play. The same is true of Fed. However, the point is that having this discussion after Nadal has won at his most dependable slam is misleading. It's based on a premise he will win other slams and that, I'm afraid is in short supply. He's won no slams away from clay since September 2010.

LK, the point I was making is that sport results can change quite quickly and 4 years in way off in the future. 4 years ago was before Federer and Nadal even played the epic Wimbledon final in '08. Would anyone have predicted the emergence of Djokovic then? Just because the clay court player who could beat Nadal doesn't exist just yet, doesn't mean he won't. Djokovic could even be that player and he has chances in the future to win RG and I believe he will, he's 25 and he has been the person to challenge Nadal and he's done a good job of it.

Useful graphs barrystar. So the drop in Nadal's game will come after Wimbledon 2013 basically, if the data from the last 45 years is anything to go by. The mountain only gets higher for Nadal as he gets older, but especially next year. Hence why I'm far from convinced he will get there unless he wins another slam or two this year and another 2 next year.

The answer is a clear yes. However it would most likely take another year of 3 slams - i.e this year or next. Being able to do that during a period of Federer and a player capable of winning 3 slam in a year in Djokovic would be incredible.

One point that highlights to me the possibility is that Nadal has now played 5 slam finals in a row. This is uncharted ground for him. We saw Fed do 10 in a row in less competitive times and later 8 in a row under the current climate, so Nadal will be having to look towards a similar density of final appearances to catch Federer imo. Its all about this year and next for him.

Federer is still capable of one more, the US or Wimbledon. If he wins one more, I don't think Nadal can catch him. Damn that clay!!

In the last 8 years the leading players have made consistency look easy, but historically it's anything but.

Of course, Nadal is one of the very players who has done just that so he is as well placed as any to keep it up, but nobody should underestimate the difficulty of winning one slam, let alone 5 more (Djoko's entire tally so far), which is what Nadal would need.

It's funny how someone can look invincible one moment and very quickly look fallible - this frequently happens to male tennis players between 26-28. The margins are very tight at the top. It's very difficult to ascertain the relative contribution made by different aspects of a player's game, but Nadal relies substantially on his speed, which I am sure feeds substantially into his clutch mentality, and which is more vulnerable to age than other parts of his game.

Tom_____ wrote:We saw Fed do 10 in a row in less competitive times and later 8 in a row under the current climate, so Nadal will be having to look towards a similar density of final appearances to catch Federer imo. Its all about this year and next for him.

Surprised that you subscribe to the Wee Keira. Who is now competing for slams other than Nadalovic?

Yes that's 2 people
Better than one.

Anyway this talk doesn't get us anywhere as the number of guys competing for slams does not have much to do with the quality.

In my eyes there is a difference in the quality of challengers, but that is only my opinion

Age does catch up and it is true very soon it will with Nadal as well who has been pro for many years now.

laverfan wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:We saw Fed do 10 in a row in less competitive times and later 8 in a row under the current climate, so Nadal will be having to look towards a similar density of final appearances to catch Federer imo. Its all about this year and next for him.

Surprised that you subscribe to the Wee Keira. Who is now competing for slams other than Nadalovic?

And btw very rude of you to accuse Tom of suscribing to anything. He did not mention Wee Keira (weak era I presume?); he merely said one stage was more competitive.

For example I could say the period 1994-1998 was more competitive than the period 1987-1991 does that mean you can also tag me with a 'wee keira' label?

Nadal has only ever won 3 slams in a year once in his career so what's the chances he'll start doing it again now? Remote. Possible, but highly unlikely. In that year too, 2010, he faced just one of his main rivals in the final (USO) and that's it. He won't get that lucky again.

Compare that with Fed in 2008 -Djokovic, Nadal, Murray in all his finals matches. Maybe 2008 was a fluke. Let's take 2009: Nadal, Solderling, Roddick and Delpo. Even then, 2 solid challengers. 2007 then? Gonzales, Nadal & Djokovic. Again, 2. If we're going to say Fed won his slams in a less competitive era, let's talk about Nadal's run in 2010, because frankly, he didn't exactly have it tough in the finals.

luciusmann wrote:LK, the point I was making is that sport results can change quite quickly and 4 years in way off in the future. 4 years ago was before Federer and Nadal even played the epic Wimbledon final in '08. Would anyone have predicted the emergence of Djokovic then? Just because the clay court player who could beat Nadal doesn't exist just yet, doesn't mean he won't. Djokovic could even be that player and he has chances in the future to win RG and I believe he will, he's 25 and he has been the person to challenge Nadal and he's done a good job of it.

We are in basic agreement, but as I recall plenty of people were predicting that Djoko would be the next player to challenge the Fedal hegemony in 2008. For me the surprise of his emergence in 2011 was in no smal part down to the fact that he had stalled and looked to be going backwards during 2009-2010. Murray is not dissimilar in his career pattern - during 2008-2009 he looked like he'd challenge more seriously for slams and No. 1 than in fact he has, but there's always the chance that he'll bloom in the next 18 months and add to the difficulties facing Nadal's record chase, he has after all twice beaten Nadal in HC slams.

Possible? Yes.
Actual? Probably not.

He can win 1-2 more RGs (but it will get harder, he'll be 27 next year and clay is a brutal surface to win > 26/27). He still needs 4-5 slams elsewhere on least preferred surfaces against another all-time great...that is tough.

I think Nadal would be happy to reach Sampras total in all truth...or at least be ahead of Emerson.

Tom_____ wrote:We saw Fed do 10 in a row in less competitive times and later 8 in a row under the current climate, so Nadal will be having to look towards a similar density of final appearances to catch Federer imo. Its all about this year and next for him.
.

As usual very biased view towards his/her hero .

So Nadal's slam finals and slams in 2005-2008 do count as strong era ones where as Fed's alone dont count rite ? bowing to your genius.

Lets see what you Nadal could win at the age of 29 + when the era will be actually stronger according to your logic, coz by that time the weak era master would have retired and hence it become stronger.

Its fans like you who bring Nadal fans reputation down.

[quote="It Must Be Love"]

laverfan wrote:For example I believe the period 1994-1998 was more competitive than the period 1987-1991 does that mean you can also tag me with a 'wee keira' label?

That's an interesting take; assuming such comparisons can be fairly made (which I have my doubts about) I'd have it the other way around.

Agassi was good in 1994-1996 before pretty much vanishing in a puff of smoke in the course of 1997-1998 (he only won slams in 1994-1995). There was almost total separation between clay and the other surfaces - the clay court giants (e.g. Bruguera, Muster) did almost nothing away from clay, and then there was Pat Rafter and Rios with Goran choking it away at Wimbledon. Sampras had some very mundane draws at Wimbledon during that period.

If you look at 1987-1991 you had Lendl battling it out with Wilander, Becker, and Edberg for the top prizes across all the main surfaces - up-and-coming youngsters who were making and even winning slam finals included Agassi, Sampras, Courier, and Chang, whilst McEnroe and Connors at their best remained traps for the unwary.

That was just a random period/ example- I was showing the theory.

Yes I agree with you that 1987-1991 was more competitive. Now will Laverfan stay consistent and also label both of us 'Wee Keira subscribers'? Or does it only apply when you criticise an era Fed won slams in

Btw I'm not saying that the period Fed dominated was weak or not weak, I'm just saying its unfair to label posters like that.

Btw Barry you accidentally quoted my quote as Laverfans, you might want to edit that.

LK, the point I was making is that sport results can change quite quickly and 4 years in way off in the future. 4 years ago was before Federer and Nadal even played the epic Wimbledon final in '08. Would anyone have predicted the emergence of Djokovic then? Just because the clay court player who could beat Nadal doesn't exist just yet, doesn't mean he won't. Djokovic could even be that player and he has chances in the future to win RG and I believe he will, he's 25 and he has been the person to challenge Nadal and he's done a good job of it.

Lucius it would take some change. Look at Borg. When he walked away you had McEnroe and Lendl who were younger and considered Slam winners in the making.

What have you now? The only guy who can rival Nadal on Clay is Djokovic. 1 player. Look at the youngsters. Harrison, Tomic, Raonic. All 3 haven't made much in the way of any progress in BO5 format. They don't look Slam material. If we look at Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro, it would take a performance of great magnitude to de-throne him on Clay. Yes they could beat Nadal in the early rounds, but I would doubt they would follow that through.

When we use age as a logic, we also have to contend that some players may be an exception to that rule. Even if Nadal lost a step wouldn't completely damage his game on Clay. When he starts to lose the spin in his groundstrokes, then yes we could see a shift in dominance.

For me Nadal can still win at RG for the next 4 years!

We will see LK!

IMBL it would have to take a massive dip in form. 1 defeat at RG in 8 campaigns is amazing. I know we saw it with Sampras, but I don't think it will be as drastic as that with Nadal.

Great player but I doubt he will if I had to put a number on it I would say Nadal finishes 13-16 slams but probably won't get to 16. I think him and Novak will have their share of successes and failures but you can never predict who will show up among players like Delpo, Raonic, or Murray to grab slams. Depends on whether the outside pack will close the distance as well and how quickly.

Come on LK, you're saying Nadal will win 11 RG titles?! I can believe 8, maybe 9, but 11 is beyond the realm of reality. He's already made history after winning it 7 times and often once you break historic records, the desire dips a bit. Doesn't need to be a big dip, Djokovic wasn't far off and he pushed Nadal close so I think at second bidding, Djokovic will stand a good chance of winning next year barring injury. It took Djokovic 3 attempts before he finally won the USO so perhaps it will be the same @ RG?

Losing a step would damage Nadal in his matches with Djokovic so it may not matter against most players, but it will against his main rival. Also worth bearing in mind that Djokovic has made the last 6/7 grand slam finals. Unless something changes, Nadal will be facing Djokovic more in the future and a good chance of it happening again @ RG.

i think in the next 14 slams (up to us open 2015) nadal and djokovic will win at least 8 of them and maybe more than 10,

that gives nadal a decent chance at overtaking fed or at least sampras and djokovic of getting 10+ slams, the dangermen are federer for at least 1 more year and tsonga, murray and del potro.

can not tell yet if nadal is completely over his hoodoo of djokovic but nole is still more likely to get knocked out in quarters and earlier than nadal is

Of course it is possible.

As things stand the top dogs at the slams are Nadal and Djokovic. If they both stay fit and sharp and competitive that means at least 20 slams up for grabs. Supposing, as many people on here have suggested that Murray never wins a slam and that (as Fed fans themselves admit now he is not the player he was) so another slam win for Fed may be beyond him. Well now you have to look lower in the rankings for potential party poopers. Can people here see Del Potro, Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych stepping up to the plate? If not who else? Until another real contender steps up then you cannot discount Nadal equalling or surpassing the 16 slam mark.

Of course at the moment Nadal has RG all too himself and is likely to have five or six more opportunities at the French Open. Spot the challengers to beat Nadal in his kingdom any time soon because I certainly can't and you cannot rule him picking up the odd slams on other surfaces in the next four or five years.

luciusmann wrote:Come on LK, you're saying Nadal will win 11 RG titles?! I can believe 8, maybe 9, but 11 is beyond the realm of reality. He's already made history after winning it 7 times and often once you break historic records, the desire dips a bit. Doesn't need to be a big dip, Djokovic wasn't far off and he pushed Nadal close so I think at second bidding, Djokovic will stand a good chance of winning next year barring injury. It took Djokovic 3 attempts before he finally won the USO so perhaps it will be the same @ RG?

Losing a step would damage Nadal in his matches with Djokovic so it may not matter against most players, but it will against his main rival. Also worth bearing in mind that Djokovic has made the last 6/7 grand slam finals. Unless something changes, Nadal will be facing Djokovic more in the future and a good chance of it happening again @ RG.

lucius,

I think you are too quick to downplay Nadal's dominance at RG. Your asking someone to really make an impact and quickly. A slow step against Djokovic, yes damaging, but that is also on the assumption that he will be left standing with Nadal. Like I said it is not just the fitness that wins Nadals countless titles on clay, but the amazing spin on the shots and that is something that will take longer to decline than speed and movement.

When Sampras coming to the end of his dominance at Wimbledon had his serve that was the biggest weapon. All it took was an effective return and slower conds that made his game a less effective force.

What can negate the spin and depth on Nadal's shots?

Once a player can answer that, then yes his dominance will end.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

LK, the point I was making is that sport results can change quite quickly and 4 years in way off in the future. 4 years ago was before Federer and Nadal even played the epic Wimbledon final in '08. Would anyone have predicted the emergence of Djokovic then? Just because the clay court player who could beat Nadal doesn't exist just yet, doesn't mean he won't. Djokovic could even be that player and he has chances in the future to win RG and I believe he will, he's 25 and he has been the person to challenge Nadal and he's done a good job of it.

Lucius it would take some change. Look at Borg. When he walked away you had McEnroe and Lendl who were younger and considered Slam winners in the making.

What have you now? The only guy who can rival Nadal on Clay is Djokovic. 1 player. Look at the youngsters. Harrison, Tomic, Raonic. All 3 haven't made much in the way of any progress in BO5 format. They don't look Slam material. If we look at Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro, it would take a performance of great magnitude to de-throne him on Clay. Yes they could beat Nadal in the early rounds, but I would doubt they would follow that through.

When we use age as a logic, we also have to contend that some players may be an exception to that rule. Even if Nadal lost a step wouldn't completely damage his game on Clay. When he starts to lose the spin in his groundstrokes, then yes we could see a shift in dominance.

For me Nadal can still win at RG for the next 4 years!

The retirement of Borg is a very interesting choice of example - you say that McEnroe and Lendl were seen as the next big slam chances (I'd agree), but it was Wilander who surprised everyone by winning his first tour title at RG in 1982, and going on to lose his title to Yannick Noah in 1983. I don't think, on the day after the final in 1988 the name of Michael Chang was on anyone's lips as next year's winner, nor Guga's name as the next year's winner the day after the 1996 final. Nor, for that matter, did many believe that Roger Federer at the height of his powers in February 2007 would be rolled over twice by Canas at IW and Miami whilst going for the IW/Miami double for a third consecutive year.

Things change quickly - I'm not saying that they will, but predicting Nadal to win the next 4 RG's at the age of 26 is, well, a bit silly really.

People have a tendency to believe what they see now will extend into the future. They do it with trends, everything.

Things always change, and usually faster than we expect. Look out for where Raonic is in the Wimbledon draw, that guy is going to shock one of the big boys, and soon.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

LK, the point I was making is that sport results can change quite quickly and 4 years in way off in the future. 4 years ago was before Federer and Nadal even played the epic Wimbledon final in '08. Would anyone have predicted the emergence of Djokovic then? Just because the clay court player who could beat Nadal doesn't exist just yet, doesn't mean he won't. Djokovic could even be that player and he has chances in the future to win RG and I believe he will, he's 25 and he has been the person to challenge Nadal and he's done a good job of it.

Lucius it would take some change. Look at Borg. When he walked away you had McEnroe and Lendl who were younger and considered Slam winners in the making.

What have you now? The only guy who can rival Nadal on Clay is Djokovic. 1 player. Look at the youngsters. Harrison, Tomic, Raonic. All 3 haven't made much in the way of any progress in BO5 format. They don't look Slam material. If we look at Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro, it would take a performance of great magnitude to de-throne him on Clay. Yes they could beat Nadal in the early rounds, but I would doubt they would follow that through.

When we use age as a logic, we also have to contend that some players may be an exception to that rule. Even if Nadal lost a step wouldn't completely damage his game on Clay. When he starts to lose the spin in his groundstrokes, then yes we could see a shift in dominance.

For me Nadal can still win at RG for the next 4 years!

The retirement of Borg is a very interesting choice of example - you say that McEnroe and Lendl were seen as the next big slam chances (I'd agree), but it was Wilander who surprised everyone by winning his first tour title at RG in 1982, and going on to lose his title to Yannick Noah in 1983. I don't think, on the day after the final in 1988 the name of Michael Chang was on anyone's lips as next year's winner, nor Guga's name as the next year's winner the day after the 1996 final. Nor, for that matter, did many believe that Roger Federer at the height of his powers in February 2007 would be rolled over twice by Canas at IW and Miami whilst going for the IW/Miami double for a third consecutive year.

Things change quickly - I'm not saying that they will, but predicting Nadal to win the next 4 RG's at the age of 26 is, well, a bit silly really.

Not really.

I think people are quick to downplay Nadal and just what a fiend he is on Clay.

Yes it was a surprise that Wilander won, but I don't see anyone in the current ranks that can really go the distance with Nadal on BO5. I think that is what is silly people thinking an unknown will do just that.

Let me ask this barry.

Do you think had Borg not retired that Wilander would've bested him at RG over 5 sets?

Didn't you say earlier LK that Djokovic lost the match more than Nadal won it today? If that's your conclusion, how on earth do you come to the idea that Nadal will remain unchallenged @ RG?

Bo5 is irrelevant here, Nadal's easiest wins over Djokovic were in Bo3 on clay. The final @ RG looked a lot closer than the matches @ Rome or Monte Carlo. Djokovic is younger and when he gets Nadal on the back foot, you see Nadal panicking like he did yesterday when he lost 8 games in a row and that's when Djokovic beats Nadal. It's happened so often in grand slam matches since last year I've lost count. It even happened yesterday but the break in some ways allowed Rafa to calmly collect himself and get back into the match to take it in 4. He won't get that in Wimbledon (with the roof).

legendkillarV2 wrote:Let me ask this barry.

Do you think had Borg not retired that Wilander would've bested him at RG over 5 sets?

Not the Borg who played during 1981, no, but whether Borg could have kept that up to 1982 we don't know, all we know is that voluntarily he gave up, seemingly burned out.

Similarly, right now I don't see anyone (barring possibly Djoko) who would take a set off Nadal at RG next year, let alone defeat him, but in 2008 I would have thought Nadal a lock for the title in 2009 after his most dominating run to the title yet.

In two years from now Nadal will no doubt be able to impart spin, but he'll be two years slower which is not going to help his game.

If the tennis world stands still for 4 years....

See how odd that sounds?

"He's won no slams away from clay since September 2010" Luciusmann
He played in 5 of the 6 GS finals since then Lucius.
One of those days Fed might beat Djoko in the semis.
In Wimbledon for example or in the USO.Guess who will be the favorite then.

Faust wrote:"He's won no slams away from clay since September 2010" Luciusmann
He played in 5 of the 6 GS finals since then Lucius.
One of those days Fed might beat Djoko in the semis.
In Wimbledon for example or in the USO.Guess who will be the favorite then.

Look, being in the final is great, Nadal deserves credit for being in those finals, but he hasn't won most of them. Nadal relying on Fed to do the job of taking Djokovic out speaks volumes about your confidence of Nadal doing the job himself!

Don't count your chickens before they hatched Faust. Now the clay court season is over, Nadal is just 750 point ahead of Federer. Fed gets to the Wimbledon semis, that lead is down to 390. Gets a better showing Cinci/Canada and he's seeded #2 for the USO, Nadal then stands a 50/50 chance of playing Djokovic in the semis. That's what I and many Fed fans want and maybe we'll get it, which would be awesome!

Lucius did you just count your chickens?

luciusmann wrote:
Don't count your chickens before they hatched Faust. Now the clay court season is over, Nadal is just 750 point ahead of Federer. Fed gets to the Wimbledon semis, that lead is down to 390. Gets a better showing Cinci/Canada and he's seeded #2 for the USO, Nadal then stands a 50/50 chance of playing Djokovic in the semis. That's what I and many Fed fans want and maybe we'll get it, which would be awesome!

Faust makes a fair point - it's only awesome if Fed is waiting for the shattered winner in the final.

This forecasting ahead is almost taking on Jersey Indian Astrologer proportions! Here, let me have a go...

1. Nadal will get older.
2. He wont dominate RG every year hereafter - but unlikely to not win again
3. He will start to get a little slower
4. His game will develop in other ways to try to compensate (e.g. hit flatter)
5. Someone will come along and 'shock' him on fave surface...as they will Federer and Djokovic. It happens.
6. Outside clay he'll be vulnerable to power-hitters...always has been.

We forget that Nadal has alot of miles under his feet already...he's had a long career already playing ATP matches since 2003. He's actually showing remarkable longevity for his style and compared to some greats. Sampras was pretty much 90-00 then declined...they dont all have long careers. Some lose the motivation (Sampras), some lose the physical skills (Rafter), some just get overtaken by evolution (Roddick).

After '99 people thought Sampras would keep going strong but look what happened to him? The tennis world evolves quickly...the Raonic's (or Goffin's?) of this world can come out of nowhere and win slams. As fast as they go up, Nadal could go down. Or Djokovic.

Plus Djokovic-Nadal are probably going to shorten each other's career with their matches!

Faust wrote:Lucius did you just count your chickens?

Fed takes No.2 spot after Wimbledon (or prior to the USO) and there's no chance Fed will meet Djokovic in the semis @ the USO and probably the Aussie Open next year too.

Only chance of your scenario happening is @ Wimbledon, after that it won't happen again until next year @ the French. Get over it.