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

First topic message reminder :

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

luciusmann wrote: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).

So being able to pick up a Slam when not playing your best is bad thing? Djoko done it earlier in the year.

I don't get how BO5 is not relevent, when it's a Slam.

The point I was making about the B05 is that it wasn't relevant to Nadal vs Djokovic matches. If anything, BO5 favours Djokovic ever so slightly rather than Nadal.

The point about the Aussie Open is a fair one but for Djokovic to win on his weakest slam surface he needs to be playing at or closet to his best. If it was at any of the other slams he could get away with it but not @ RG.

You better assume Fed doesnt lose early at Wimb...anything can happen in this sport.

In Wimbledon is a fact not a chance.
IT IS HAPPENING.As for the USO I like
very much Nadal's odds to be seeded No2.

barrystar wrote:

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?

Not really.

I think the fact Sampras had his dominant years past 26 on his favoured surface does offer a little validity to my comment.

If his movement is half as good as what Ferrer's is at 30, then I don't think it seems like such an outlandish statement. The reliance here is on Nadal gettng progressively worse and the rest of the field getting progressively better. Whilst logic points to that conclusion, I still think the upcoming field need just more about them for me to be totally convinced of Nadal being that vulnerable on Clay.

Quite agree LK...the modern trend is showing players getting better towards 30 not worse...and the physicality of the game means it takes years for the guys to be in a position to challenge consistently at the top. Careers are moving from 19-27 to 23-31...

He can't do worse than last year (last year was bad enough). Thankfully Fed fans like myself and others don't expect much from Fed @ Wimbledon (thanks to his two quarter finals in a row) and so he can't lose much in terms of points although he can gain a lot through doing better. So he's ideally placed out of the top 3 to gain.

Let's not forget lydian, you were constantly reminding the forum that Fed was due an early round exit @ RG so not surprised to hear you now saying the same thing for Wimbledon! Anything can happen? Fed hasn't had an exit earlier than the quarters at a slam since when exactly? Some things you can rely on, like Fed getting to the quarters. Would take a real upset for anything other to happen.

luciusmann wrote:The point I was making about the B05 is that it wasn't relevant to Nadal vs Djokovic matches. If anything, BO5 favours Djokovic ever so slightly rather than Nadal.

The point about the Aussie Open is a fair one but for Djokovic to win on his weakest slam surface he needs to be playing at or closet to his best. If it was at any of the other slams he could get away with it but not @ RG.

I don't think it favours Djokovic. If it goes 5 sets in a match yes Djokovic is favoured, but 3-4 sets it is Nadal all the way.

When you look at current Clay players, Monaco, Almagro, Ferrer is there room for such improvement that Nadal would be troubled by them?

lol lucuismann...well lets face it he did have tough matches all the way and but for a Delpo on 1 leg after set 2 he would have gone out at quarters.
Seriously, Fed used to nearly always have that 1 bad office day match early on where he struggled...I just think that these days he's more and more likely to come a cropper on a bad office day.

Faust wrote:In Wimbledon is a fact not a chance.
IT IS HAPPENING.As for the USO I like
very much Nadal's odds to be seeded No2.

I don't want to describe your posts as somewhat delusion but it's not far away from it. How is Fed meeting Djokovic in the semis @ Wimbledon a fact? They haven't done the draw yet. He could equally meet Nadal in the semis. Unless you got a crystal ball, please enlighten us.

What odds are you referring to? Nadal hasn't won any titles off clay in 21 months so for him to stay at No.2 he needs Fed to gain no points and he himself must win tournaments off clay, which he hasn't done, as I said, in 21 months (perhaps longer). Nadal only narrowly held onto the #2 seed position for RG and was required to win it to cling onto it. Fed has Halle, Wimbledon, Olympics, Cinci and Canada to close the gap until the USO. Nadal already has many points to defend at Wimbledon as it is.

lkv2 - I'd say you have two very bad examples there:

a. Sampras turned 26 in August 1997 - he won 3 slams in the 12 months preceding that birthday, and 1 in the subsequent 12 months, Wimbledon 1998, which he defended in 1999, and 2000.

Wimbledon was a fantastically slick surface on which Sampras's abilities to serve (esp 2nd serve), volley, slam-dunk, hit a running forehand, and above all keep the points short stood him in very good stead (like Goran in 2001). After Agassi's win in 1992 it was not until 2002 that a baseliner won at wimbledon. Sampras's longevity on the slick Wimbledon grass is hardly the blueprint for Nadal looking forward at RG. His hurrah on the fast USO surface against a man who he had dominated at Flushing Meadows for 12 years is likewise not an encouragement to Nadal.

b. Ferrer has played 680 matches, a long old career, but Nadal at the age of 26 has already played 700 and disproportionately by comparison they have been at the business end of tougher tournaments against tougher opposition and more gruelling physically and mentally. He's also had to carry an extra 12kgs about during that time. Every year Nadal has a noticeable dip in his physical powers, usually coinciding with the end of the seadon - the mileage is almost certainly going to start to show considerably sooner than in the case of Ferrer.

lydian wrote:lol lucuismann...well lets face it he did have tough matches all the way and but for a Delpo on 1 leg after set 2 he would have gone out at quarters.
Seriously, Fed used to nearly always have that 1 bad office day match early on where he struggled...I just think that these days he's more and more likely to come a cropper on a bad office day.

I agreed with you before about this although I don't think it's likely to happen @ Wimbledon or the USO (i.e. finishing worse compared to where he was last year). If it was likely to happen I'd say it would happen @ the Aussie Open and the French, his two weaker slams and at both he's got the semis so not bad for him really. I can only see things getting better at the two remaining slams but doing worse than last year? Possible, but not likely at the two tournaments he won 11 out of 16 slams.

I agree its less likely at Wimb or USO but hey you never know. I hope he gets that one last "hoorah"...would seem a shame to fade away slamless since AO10 and I dont think he'll want to get to #1 without winning a slam either (or maybe he will if he wants the record regardless but we know how scathing people were about Wozniacki getting #1 without a slam).

barrystar wrote:lkv2 - I'd say you have two very bad examples there:

a. Sampras turned 26 in August 1997 - he won 3 slams in the 12 months preceding that birthday, and 1 in the subsequent 12 months, Wimbledon 1998, which he defended in 1999, and 2000.

Wimbledon was a fantastically slick surface on which Sampras's abilities to serve (esp 2nd serve), volley, slam-dunk, hit a running forehand, and above all keep the points short stood him in very good stead (like Goran in 2001). After Agassi's win in 1992 it was not until 2002 that a baseliner won at wimbledon. Sampras's longevity on the slick Wimbledon grass is hardly the blueprint for Nadal looking forward at RG. His hurrah on the fast USO surface against a man who he had dominated at Flushing Meadows for 12 years is likewise not an encouragement to Nadal.

b. Ferrer has played 680 matches, a long old career, but Nadal at the age of 26 has already played 700 and disproportionately by comparison they have been at the business end of tougher tournaments against tougher opposition and more gruelling physically and mentally. He's also had to carry an extra 12kgs about during that time. Every year Nadal has a noticeable dip in his physical powers, usually coinciding with the end of the seadon - the mileage is almost certainly going to start to show considerably sooner than in the case of Ferrer.

A) You splitting hairs by a month. Not sure his body would've changed that dramatically or his form.

B) Using the back end of season is again half-arsed. We are talking Clay. Sampras from 2000 onwards didn't feature at more than 2 Clay events prior to RG which suggests he planned his season around Wimbledon and HC. Who is to say that Nadal later in his career won't do the same and skip the latter end of the season? The assumption here is that Nadal will continue on the same schedule he does now. If his results don't pick up on the HC post US Open, who is to say he might not cut that out of his calendar to maxmimse his chances at AO to RG?

legendkillarV2 wrote: I don't think it favours Djokovic. If it goes 5 sets in a match yes Djokovic is favoured, but 3-4 sets it is Nadal all the way.

Djokovic beat Nadal in 4 sets at both Wimbledon & the USO and then 5 sets on the slow surface of the Aussie Open (third slowest slam). Really, we don't know if the surfaces will make the critical difference or if Nadal's changes have. I said before the RG final that if surfaces make a difference Nadal should win this in 4. Now he has. If Nadal's difference have made the difference then he should win in 4/5 @ Wimbledon & the USO. If you subscribe like I do, that faster surfaces will favour Djokovic, he should win in 4/5 sets at those two tournaments. Right now, we're none the wiser after this match. If Nadal has destroyed Djokovic in 3 lopsided sets, I'd say Nadal would be favourite at the next two slams, but that's not what's happened, hence why I'm sticking with Djokovic. I think the surfaces make the difference, not the number of sets between the two.

Let's see what happens.

Your prediction was wrong today Lucius, you even had a chance to change it last evening and you still stuck with the wrong choice.

Will you be right for Wimby+US? We will see, time will tell

I agree the faster conds favour Djokovic, for me however with the added weight to Nadal's racquet what impact is that to have coming into the faster tournaments coming up.

I'd like posters to post here who they think are going to win slams over the next five years? As we stand you cannot look beyond Djokovic and Nsdal just now so put your nominees forward.

It Must Be Love wrote:Let's see what happens.

Your prediction was wrong today Lucius, you even had a chance to change it last evening and you still stuck with the wrong choice.

Will you be right for Wimby+US? We will see, time will tell

I changed it last evening? I picked Djokovic before the match and stuck with it so how is that changing it? I said as the match was progressing Nadal might run away with it since Djokovic's first serve was dreadful, but that wasn't changing it, that was observing it as it unfolded. I said it would be close and also added a caveat on one of the threads before that if Nadal won it would be in 4 and if Djokovic won it would be in 5.

I can't get everything right, when I was previously wrong, I was predicting Nadal would beat Federer @ IW, I was glad to be proved wrong then! As I'm primarily a Federer fan, today's result isn't significant, I can look at this with far more detachment than a Fed match.

I said 'you had a chance of changing it' even when Nadal was winning.

Aye Lucius
If everyone got their predictions right all the time the bookies would be out of business.

It Must Be Love wrote:I said 'you had a chance of changing it' even when Nadal was winning.

Sorry, misread that!

No worries

Lucius you started talking about ranks and points and
I said in Wimbledon is a fact that Nadal is No2 as for the USO I like
his chances.As you stated Nadal has not won anything outside
clay in 15 months. Is'n it delusional on your part
to believe that only Federer can pick up points in Halle,W,
Cin, Can or the Olympics?Or you have a crystal ball? I will
remind you that odds are two to one for Nadal and five to one
for Fed to win Wimbledon

Faust wrote:Lucius you started talking about ranks and points and
I said in Wimbledon is a fact that Nadal is No2 as for the USO I like
his chances.As you stated Nadal has not won anything outside
clay in 15 months. Is'n it delusional on your part
to believe that only Federer can pick up points in Halle,W,
Cin, Can or the Olympics?Or you have a crystal ball? I will
remind you that odds are two to one for Nadal and five to one
for Fed to win Wimbledon

You didn't make some of your points clearer. I didn't mention Wimbledon as No.2 for Fed because it's impossible for him to get it (as has been discussed on this forum extensively). You didn't make clear for example whether you meant Nadal as #2 seed or as 2nd favourite. That doesn't make any sense either, who talked about who was second favourite for the USO? Not me, I was talking about second seed. In the context, your point about second favourite isn't relevant, I never talked about favourites. I don't need a crystal ball to see that Nadal defends 1, 200 points @ Wimbledon and Fed defends just 360. It's easy to work out who can gain points more easily. BTW, it's longer than 15 months, it's over 21 months since he wont anything away from clay. Odds for winning are different, I was simply talking about rankings and points and Fed stands the better chance of going above Nadal without winning anything. Nadal on the other hand probably does need to win something.

It's not delusional at all, Nadal is well known for doing less well post Wimbledon. I've said it in threads before, Nadal has something like 3 or 4 titles post Wimbledon in his entire career, it may be 1 or 2 more, but that's it. That's a fact. Fed has many more titles post Wimbledon, 11 alone if you include just the USO & WTF titles. Hence why I think there's good chance will overtake Nadal whereas Nadal won't hang onto No.2.

When was the last time Fed won a Slam post June?
I think it was 2009.


Let's see if he can change it this year.

It Must Be Love wrote:When was the last time Fed won a Slam post June?
I think it was 2009.


Let's see if he can change it this year.

I don't see the relevance? It's not really disputed that Nadal has, for most of his career geared himself up for the first 6 months of the year upto Wimbledon. His distributions of titles show that. 5 singles titles in all I can find on wiki (over 9 years) but that includes 1 Madrid hardcourt title which may have been prior to Wimbledon? Fed has at least 19 (if you just count the Masters 1000 tournaments, USO & WTO).

Obviously I'd love Fed to win the USO, which is what you're referring to however I certainly am not selectively picking statistics to suit my case. I'm simply illustrating the effort Nadal puts into the first half of the season compared to the second.

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?

I didn't mention anything about wee keira - i was just talking about comparative competition in slam final stages. I think you've decided to misinterpret my post.

invisiblecoolers 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.
.

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.

another weird interpretation? with the one above in particular being very childish

Firstly i don't have a tennis hero (other than maybe Agassi if pushed), as hard as it may be to believe i am simply a fan of tennis and probably one of the few people who still deliberately makes time to watch womens matches.

Just to be really clear - my post was highlighting that Federer has done incredibly; who has taken most slams of all, had consecutive final appearance streaks of 10 (prior to Nadal and Djokovic being a big threat on all surfaces) and 8 (when they certainly were a threat) respectively. I was highlighting that for Nadal to get near Feds Slam tally he will need to have a similar density/streak in his career of reaching slam finals to give him the chance to take home enough winner's silverware. I pointed out that he is currently on a streak of 5 finals (40%) win rate), which has not really been mentioned much and will have to look to extend this right now to have a chance to get to Feds record.

It certainly was not a swipe at respective eras, as that is as stupid a debate as the GOAT debate and will never derive an agreeable answer. It seems to me several of you are really sensitive about the wee keira issue - lets just get one thing clear - i did not bring it up and i do not want it to end up being discussed yet again.

Working by stats:

Feds first 10 slam final streak contained 36 sets (Av 3.6 sets per final)

Feds 8 slam final streak contained 32 sets (Av 4 sets per final)

Hence the first streak featured a less competitive time.

My comment could just as easily have been interpreted that Federers early 10 final streak was him being more dominant over the competition due to his ability rather than the strength of opposition, especially as he won most of those matches. However, the sensitive among you got very defensive about it. So i reject any involvement in wee keira debates caused by insecure posters misinterpreting my original sentence. My post was meant to trigger a response about how hard it will be from here fore Nadal to appear in the next 4 slam finals to say, take his streak to 9 finals, not provoke a return to repetitive guff from the old Beeb board.

In future, instead of inventing a whole paragraph of opinions i did not say and arguing against them, simply check with me by asking what i meant. Be advised that i try hard to keep in line with the thread subject and so my posts are usually pointed towards relevance to the thread - clearly talking about Nadals likelihood to reached slam finals in the future is relevant, digressing to talk about the strength of an era 6-8 years ago ISN'T relevant and has no place in this thread

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

As much as i agree that Nadal isn't likely to have his bubble popped by a new player at RG anytime soon, i'm not sure its that easy to see into the Future. I remember Ferrero and in particular Coria being tipped to dominate on clay for a number of years, then the 2004 FO choke happened and all of a sudden, despite 5 more finals for Coria, along comes a guy in his first RG and he starts a new domination period. In my opinion the probability is that the FO will have winners chop and change as Nadal fades away, but if not i think the most likely way his domination will get abruptly stopped is by a 'burst on the scene' performance by a young player of the 'next' generation that will change our perspective in a similar way that Nadal did on this surface.

Tom
Both Laverfan and IC should apologise IMHO.

luciusmann wrote:He can't do worse than last year

Bit of a silly statement. Quite obviously Fed can do worse than last year; probably he won't, but quite obviously he can.

I am convinced Del Potro is on the verge of something, he is brewing. He is one big win away from something and I feel he will prevent Nadal winning any hard court slams in the coming years and I think he has game to beat him on clay as well. I think he struggles on grass though, so wont happen just yet.

Tom_____ wrote:

luciusmann wrote:He can't do worse than last year

Bit of a silly statement. Quite obviously Fed can do worse than last year; probably he won't, but quite obviously he can.

Silly? A statement based on his results since 2003 when he first won Wimbledon. Certainly he can exit early (anything is possible, same is true for Nadal and Djokovic) but he hasn't since 2002. Since then his earliest exit was in 2010 & 2011 and even then in the quarters. Therefore in context, he can be relied on to get to the quarters, maybe not the semis but certainly the quarters, hence my statement he can't do worse than that. Even looking at the other slams, the last time he had an earlier exit before the quarters was in June 2004 @ the French, 8 years ago. Anything is possible, but on the balance of probability, it's highly unlikely he can do worse than last year (barring injury).

Agree CAS, he was on the verge of something at RG until his knee went west.

CAS wrote:I am convinced Del Potro is on the verge of something, he is brewing. He is one big win away from something and I feel he will prevent Nadal winning any hard court slams in the coming years and I think he has game to beat him on clay as well. I think he struggles on grass though, so wont happen just yet.

Bizarrely though i think he is one guy who Murray can handle on HC - could be very interesting to see Del P clear a road for Murray to play him in a HC slam final.

Tom_____ wrote:

CAS wrote:I am convinced Del Potro is on the verge of something, he is brewing. He is one big win away from something and I feel he will prevent Nadal winning any hard court slams in the coming years and I think he has game to beat him on clay as well. I think he struggles on grass though, so wont happen just yet.

Bizarrely though i think he is one guy who Murray can handle on HC - could be very interesting to see Del P clear a road for Murray to play him in a HC slam final.

yea agreed with both Tom and CAS, DP is brewing pretty bad and yes one big win over the top 3 would do wonders for his confidence, more than the physical issues its the confidence he is lacking right now to push for the big ones, Wimbledon is out of question right now considering his movement but he might still be a giant killer in Wimbledon and I hope he falls in Rafa's quarter, he is better equipped to beat Rafa in the top 6.

luciusmann wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

luciusmann wrote:He can't do worse than last year

Bit of a silly statement. Quite obviously Fed can do worse than last year; probably he won't, but quite obviously he can.

Silly? A statement based on his results since 2003 when he first won Wimbledon. Certainly he can exit early (anything is possible, same is true for Nadal and Djokovic) but he hasn't since 2002. Since then his earliest exit was in 2010 & 2011 and even then in the quarters. Therefore in context, he can be relied on to get to the quarters, maybe not the semis but certainly the quarters, hence my statement he can't do worse than that. Even looking at the other slams, the last time he had an earlier exit before the quarters was in June 2004 @ the French, 8 years ago. Anything is possible, but on the balance of probability, it's highly unlikely he can do worse than last year (barring injury).

Its still a silly statement. As you're stating the improbable as impossible.

Yet still your post above is also flawed in a hilariously ironic way, because it was Federer himself who took out Sampras in R4, when for the previous 9 years at Wimbers Sampras had won 7 times, made one SF and one QF exit. He couldn't do worse than a QF also by your logic, yet very clearly he did.

Silly.

Tom_____ wrote: Its still a silly statement. As you're stating the improbable as impossible.

Yet still your post above is also flawed in a hilariously ironic way, because it was Federer himself who took out Sampras in R4, when for the previous 9 years at Wimbers Sampras had won 7 times, made one SF and one QF exit. He couldn't do worse than a QF also by your logic, yet very clearly he did.

Silly.

If you're highly pedantic as you are, then yes. I remember you're thing for being pedantic last year when you posted more frequently too. I haven't stated the improbable as impossible, that's your choice of interpretation, not mine. I've asserted that in my view it's highly unlikely he can do worse than last year based on his results. Obviously there's always a possibility I might be wrong, that's built into my configuration and into anyone else's. I'm not god after all. If I must get the exact wording correct to please you're insistent protestations, I may consider it, but I believe everyone else understood me clearly.

Sampras? What a poor example. You can't compare inconsistent Sampras in 2001 with Federer now. In the same year he was knocked out by Federer he'd only made R4 @ the Aussie Open & R2 @ RG. Sampras's inconsistency was already apparent in that year and so in hindsight his knock out by Federer isn't shocking (but it became symbolic subsequently). Fed hasn't had that inconsistently in any of the slams. Unless you have information which suggests some reason for an early exit then please forward it but my statement isn't silly at all. You're interruption of it is though.

It is a travesty that nadal has 11. He is clearly not that talented. If he were to beat Roger's records, it would change nothing. Roger is a lot more talented. A lot.

Seifer Almasy wrote:It is a travesty that nadal has 11. He is clearly not that talented. If he were to beat Roger's records, it would change nothing. Roger is a lot more talented. A lot.

Never heard that before.

I think Nadal has won enough outside of clay to deserve be called an all-time great, Sampras one half of his slams on one surface. Of course Nadals career is extremely clay heavy, but is arguable that the fact he's been able to win on other courts with his game style is pretty special even if the conditions have slowed over the years, because you still have big hitters like Soderling, Berdych, Del Potro, Tsonga to contend with.

Djokovic will likely be Nadal's main challenger going forward over the next two years. Hopefully Murray will make a breakthrough at some point over the next two years to challenge the top two intermittently. There is still a possibility that Federer might win another slam (hard court) but the chances are diminishing.

The next wave of tennis players are taking their time to break through .... Del Potro might soon be challenging for semi-final / final positions.

If Nadal keeps going for another four years, the chances are he will reach 13-17 slam titles.

Seifer Almasy wrote:It is a travesty that nadal has 11. He is clearly not that talented

Yeah, just about anyone can roll up these days and win 11 slams across all surfaces/styles these days
For your info. his titles include Queens which still uses the same fast grass type Wimbledon used to have.

Contrary to belief, the surfaces are still very different...not as much as before speed wise but don't delude yourself they are the same otherwise Federer might have 5-6 French titles to match his 5-6 USO and Wimb titles. He doesn't because clay is still very different to grass or hard. Furthermore, USTA are ripping up their hard courts to lay down clay as they recognise it's the best for developing your game and strategic approach.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:lkv2 - I'd say you have two very bad examples there:

a. Sampras turned 26 in August 1997 - he won 3 slams in the 12 months preceding that birthday, and 1 in the subsequent 12 months, Wimbledon 1998, which he defended in 1999, and 2000.

Wimbledon was a fantastically slick surface on which Sampras's abilities to serve (esp 2nd serve), volley, slam-dunk, hit a running forehand, and above all keep the points short stood him in very good stead (like Goran in 2001). After Agassi's win in 1992 it was not until 2002 that a baseliner won at wimbledon. Sampras's longevity on the slick Wimbledon grass is hardly the blueprint for Nadal looking forward at RG. His hurrah on the fast USO surface against a man who he had dominated at Flushing Meadows for 12 years is likewise not an encouragement to Nadal.

b. Ferrer has played 680 matches, a long old career, but Nadal at the age of 26 has already played 700 and disproportionately by comparison they have been at the business end of tougher tournaments against tougher opposition and more gruelling physically and mentally. He's also had to carry an extra 12kgs about during that time. Every year Nadal has a noticeable dip in his physical powers, usually coinciding with the end of the seadon - the mileage is almost certainly going to start to show considerably sooner than in the case of Ferrer.

A) You splitting hairs by a month. Not sure his body would've changed that dramatically or his form.

B) Using the back end of season is again half-arsed. We are talking Clay. Sampras from 2000 onwards didn't feature at more than 2 Clay events prior to RG which suggests he planned his season around Wimbledon and HC. Who is to say that Nadal later in his career won't do the same and skip the latter end of the season? The assumption here is that Nadal will continue on the same schedule he does now. If his results don't pick up on the HC post US Open, who is to say he might not cut that out of his calendar to maxmimse his chances at AO to RG?

A) I don't accept that I am splitting hairs - next time RG comes round Rafa will be a whole year older, but even so I am making more than just that point. I am also pointing out that history and commonsense tells us that slick low-bouncing grass is a much easier and less exacting surface for an older player with a great serve and good vollying skills to 'dominate' on than clay - surely you would agree with that?

B) I understand your point - Nadal may drop his end of season committments, he could try to run an Aus Open to US Open season, but even if he does his mileage will be substantially greater than Ferrer's at the same age by 150-200 more matches making the comparison a lop-sided one. Again the comparison with Sampras under this point neglects the fact that Sampras's best surface was one on which he could, relatively speaking, conserve energy, Nadal's best surface is the most energy sapping one. Even Aus Open to US Open is a tough old season, and he'd need to do well at the big H/C TMS tournaments and slams to keep his seeding to a level whereby he does not have to face too many tough opponents in earlier rounds - if he stuck more to clay (which he could) he'd have much tougher draws at MC/Rome/Madrid/RG.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:lkv2 - I'd say you have two very bad examples there:

a. Sampras turned 26 in August 1997 - he won 3 slams in the 12 months preceding that birthday, and 1 in the subsequent 12 months, Wimbledon 1998, which he defended in 1999, and 2000.

Wimbledon was a fantastically slick surface on which Sampras's abilities to serve (esp 2nd serve), volley, slam-dunk, hit a running forehand, and above all keep the points short stood him in very good stead (like Goran in 2001). After Agassi's win in 1992 it was not until 2002 that a baseliner won at wimbledon. Sampras's longevity on the slick Wimbledon grass is hardly the blueprint for Nadal looking forward at RG. His hurrah on the fast USO surface against a man who he had dominated at Flushing Meadows for 12 years is likewise not an encouragement to Nadal.

b. Ferrer has played 680 matches, a long old career, but Nadal at the age of 26 has already played 700 and disproportionately by comparison they have been at the business end of tougher tournaments against tougher opposition and more gruelling physically and mentally. He's also had to carry an extra 12kgs about during that time. Every year Nadal has a noticeable dip in his physical powers, usually coinciding with the end of the seadon - the mileage is almost certainly going to start to show considerably sooner than in the case of Ferrer.

A) You splitting hairs by a month. Not sure his body would've changed that dramatically or his form.

B) Using the back end of season is again half-arsed. We are talking Clay. Sampras from 2000 onwards didn't feature at more than 2 Clay events prior to RG which suggests he planned his season around Wimbledon and HC. Who is to say that Nadal later in his career won't do the same and skip the latter end of the season? The assumption here is that Nadal will continue on the same schedule he does now. If his results don't pick up on the HC post US Open, who is to say he might not cut that out of his calendar to maxmimse his chances at AO to RG?

A) I don't accept that I am splitting hairs - next time RG comes round Rafa will be a whole year older, but even so I am making more than just that point. I am also pointing out that history and commonsense tells us that slick low-bouncing grass is a much easier and less exacting surface for an older player with a great serve and good vollying skills to 'dominate' on than clay - surely you would agree with that?

B) I understand your point - Nadal may drop his end of season committments, he could try to run an Aus Open to US Open season, but even if he does his mileage will be substantially greater than Ferrer's at the same age by 150-200 more matches making the comparison a lop-sided one. Again the comparison with Sampras under this point neglects the fact that Sampras's best surface was one on which he could, relatively speaking, conserve energy, Nadal's best surface is the most energy sapping one. Even Aus Open to US Open is a tough old season, and he'd need to do well at the big H/C TMS tournaments and slams to keep his seeding to a level whereby he does not have to face too many tough opponents in earlier rounds - if he stuck more to clay (which he could) he'd have much tougher draws at MC/Rome/Madrid/RG.

A) I would agree that yes Grass of the 90's was easier to remain a constant, but also I raise the point that a big serve is far easier to overcome than a looping FH that has more spin than a politician in a laundrette. I think that is something we can agree on. the only thing really that could possibly negate the shot would be constant retrieval. Even though it is something most players are trying to do, for me it will stand the test of time far longer than a big serve of grease lightening grass.

B) Look at how many matches Connors knocked up before making that run at the 1991 US Open at 39!!!! Remember also that he went through the ages from using a wooden racquet with a 75-80 inch head size to a metal racquet with a headsize of around 85-90 inches. If you look at the changes he endured from when he first played and he was still at the business end of Slams during his latter years. It isn't nigh on impossible for Nadal to continue his dominance on Clay. In fairness this is the first time in history really that we are seeing such surface dominance, unless we go back to the 1800's early 1900's when there was hardly any tour other than the Slams themselves.

For me it took a long time for Sampras to realise that better management on his schedule improved his chances at Wimbledon and even the US Open. If he played on beyond 31 I do wonder how many Slams he could've won. Granted yes Clay is energy sapping, but Nadal is only 26. I think it is only a matter of time that he starts to look at the back end of a season and cut the tournament participation down. Yes he has clocked a lot of miles, but it would take a massive collapse for me for him to start enduring bad form on Clay. If Nadal was to start suffering niggling injuries, then yes we could see a decline. He is too much of precise and driven character to allow his form to wain on Clay and not be proactive should their be any threats to his stranglehold on the surface.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:lkv2 - I'd say you have two very bad examples there:

a. Sampras turned 26 in August 1997 - he won 3 slams in the 12 months preceding that birthday, and 1 in the subsequent 12 months, Wimbledon 1998, which he defended in 1999, and 2000.

Wimbledon was a fantastically slick surface on which Sampras's abilities to serve (esp 2nd serve), volley, slam-dunk, hit a running forehand, and above all keep the points short stood him in very good stead (like Goran in 2001). After Agassi's win in 1992 it was not until 2002 that a baseliner won at wimbledon. Sampras's longevity on the slick Wimbledon grass is hardly the blueprint for Nadal looking forward at RG. His hurrah on the fast USO surface against a man who he had dominated at Flushing Meadows for 12 years is likewise not an encouragement to Nadal.

b. Ferrer has played 680 matches, a long old career, but Nadal at the age of 26 has already played 700 and disproportionately by comparison they have been at the business end of tougher tournaments against tougher opposition and more gruelling physically and mentally. He's also had to carry an extra 12kgs about during that time. Every year Nadal has a noticeable dip in his physical powers, usually coinciding with the end of the seadon - the mileage is almost certainly going to start to show considerably sooner than in the case of Ferrer.

A) You splitting hairs by a month. Not sure his body would've changed that dramatically or his form.

B) Using the back end of season is again half-arsed. We are talking Clay. Sampras from 2000 onwards didn't feature at more than 2 Clay events prior to RG which suggests he planned his season around Wimbledon and HC. Who is to say that Nadal later in his career won't do the same and skip the latter end of the season? The assumption here is that Nadal will continue on the same schedule he does now. If his results don't pick up on the HC post US Open, who is to say he might not cut that out of his calendar to maxmimse his chances at AO to RG?

A) I don't accept that I am splitting hairs - next time RG comes round Rafa will be a whole year older, but even so I am making more than just that point. I am also pointing out that history and commonsense tells us that slick low-bouncing grass is a much easier and less exacting surface for an older player with a great serve and good vollying skills to 'dominate' on than clay - surely you would agree with that?

B) I understand your point - Nadal may drop his end of season committments, he could try to run an Aus Open to US Open season, but even if he does his mileage will be substantially greater than Ferrer's at the same age by 150-200 more matches making the comparison a lop-sided one. Again the comparison with Sampras under this point neglects the fact that Sampras's best surface was one on which he could, relatively speaking, conserve energy, Nadal's best surface is the most energy sapping one. Even Aus Open to US Open is a tough old season, and he'd need to do well at the big H/C TMS tournaments and slams to keep his seeding to a level whereby he does not have to face too many tough opponents in earlier rounds - if he stuck more to clay (which he could) he'd have much tougher draws at MC/Rome/Madrid/RG.

A) I would agree that yes Grass of the 90's was easier to remain a constant, but also I raise the point that a big serve is far easier to overcome than a looping FH that has more spin than a politician in a laundrette. I think that is something we can agree on. the only thing really that could possibly negate the shot would be constant retrieval. Even though it is something most players are trying to do, for me it will stand the test of time far longer than a big serve of grease lightening grass.

B) Look at how many matches Connors knocked up before making that run at the 1991 US Open at 39!!!! Remember also that he went through the ages from using a wooden racquet with a 75-80 inch head size to a metal racquet with a headsize of around 85-90 inches. If you look at the changes he endured from when he first played and he was still at the business end of Slams during his latter years. It isn't nigh on impossible for Nadal to continue his dominance on Clay. In fairness this is the first time in history really that we are seeing such surface dominance, unless we go back to the 1800's early 1900's when there was hardly any tour other than the Slams themselves.

For me it took a long time for Sampras to realise that better management on his schedule improved his chances at Wimbledon and even the US Open. If he played on beyond 31 I do wonder how many Slams he could've won. Granted yes Clay is energy sapping, but Nadal is only 26. I think it is only a matter of time that he starts to look at the back end of a season and cut the tournament participation down. Yes he has clocked a lot of miles, but it would take a massive collapse for me for him to start enduring bad form on Clay. If Nadal was to start suffering niggling injuries, then yes we could see a decline. He is too much of precise and driven character to allow his form to wain on Clay and not be proactive should their be any threats to his stranglehold on the surface.

A. I'm not sure about your serve vs. spin point. Big serves had their heyday when racquet frame technology was ahead of string technology and surfaces were slick from, say, 1985 - the early 2000's. Only Agassi in 1992 was able to prevail against the big servers, nobody else could and he never beat Sampras at USO or Wimbledon. The era ended because string technology aided returns and conditions slowed, not because someone found an answer with the technology that Sampras faced in the late 1990's. The other thing about your serve vs. spin point is that a serve is delivered from stationary, the spinny forehand has to be delivered by someone on the move, so is more affected by age. It's a debating point.

B. Nadal on clay is clearly something special and one has to acknowledge that past sporting history may not be a guide as to what he's capable of in the future, but one very firm signal clay sends to us is that it's a young man's surface. As you point out, a few niggles may start to take the edge of Nadal - he's done well to bring his past problems under control and that suggest that he'll work like a demon to keep at that. Two years, maybe, but four is just too much for me.

Nadal was very lucky to win the Final yesterday, as had play had to continue or resume late on during Sunday with Djokovic playing well and up a break in the 4th set, I believe that Djokovic would have won that match. Nadal's only hope yesterday of winning was to make a rip roaring start out of the blocks and win that 4th set to prevent the match heading into a decider of which usually Djokovic always wins them.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

barrystar wrote:lkv2 - I'd say you have two very bad examples there:

a. Sampras turned 26 in August 1997 - he won 3 slams in the 12 months preceding that birthday, and 1 in the subsequent 12 months, Wimbledon 1998, which he defended in 1999, and 2000.

Wimbledon was a fantastically slick surface on which Sampras's abilities to serve (esp 2nd serve), volley, slam-dunk, hit a running forehand, and above all keep the points short stood him in very good stead (like Goran in 2001). After Agassi's win in 1992 it was not until 2002 that a baseliner won at wimbledon. Sampras's longevity on the slick Wimbledon grass is hardly the blueprint for Nadal looking forward at RG. His hurrah on the fast USO surface against a man who he had dominated at Flushing Meadows for 12 years is likewise not an encouragement to Nadal.

b. Ferrer has played 680 matches, a long old career, but Nadal at the age of 26 has already played 700 and disproportionately by comparison they have been at the business end of tougher tournaments against tougher opposition and more gruelling physically and mentally. He's also had to carry an extra 12kgs about during that time. Every year Nadal has a noticeable dip in his physical powers, usually coinciding with the end of the seadon - the mileage is almost certainly going to start to show considerably sooner than in the case of Ferrer.

A) You splitting hairs by a month. Not sure his body would've changed that dramatically or his form.

B) Using the back end of season is again half-arsed. We are talking Clay. Sampras from 2000 onwards didn't feature at more than 2 Clay events prior to RG which suggests he planned his season around Wimbledon and HC. Who is to say that Nadal later in his career won't do the same and skip the latter end of the season? The assumption here is that Nadal will continue on the same schedule he does now. If his results don't pick up on the HC post US Open, who is to say he might not cut that out of his calendar to maxmimse his chances at AO to RG?

A) I don't accept that I am splitting hairs - next time RG comes round Rafa will be a whole year older, but even so I am making more than just that point. I am also pointing out that history and commonsense tells us that slick low-bouncing grass is a much easier and less exacting surface for an older player with a great serve and good vollying skills to 'dominate' on than clay - surely you would agree with that?

B) I understand your point - Nadal may drop his end of season committments, he could try to run an Aus Open to US Open season, but even if he does his mileage will be substantially greater than Ferrer's at the same age by 150-200 more matches making the comparison a lop-sided one. Again the comparison with Sampras under this point neglects the fact that Sampras's best surface was one on which he could, relatively speaking, conserve energy, Nadal's best surface is the most energy sapping one. Even Aus Open to US Open is a tough old season, and he'd need to do well at the big H/C TMS tournaments and slams to keep his seeding to a level whereby he does not have to face too many tough opponents in earlier rounds - if he stuck more to clay (which he could) he'd have much tougher draws at MC/Rome/Madrid/RG.

A) I would agree that yes Grass of the 90's was easier to remain a constant, but also I raise the point that a big serve is far easier to overcome than a looping FH that has more spin than a politician in a laundrette. I think that is something we can agree on. the only thing really that could possibly negate the shot would be constant retrieval. Even though it is something most players are trying to do, for me it will stand the test of time far longer than a big serve of grease lightening grass.

B) Look at how many matches Connors knocked up before making that run at the 1991 US Open at 39!!!! Remember also that he went through the ages from using a wooden racquet with a 75-80 inch head size to a metal racquet with a headsize of around 85-90 inches. If you look at the changes he endured from when he first played and he was still at the business end of Slams during his latter years. It isn't nigh on impossible for Nadal to continue his dominance on Clay. In fairness this is the first time in history really that we are seeing such surface dominance, unless we go back to the 1800's early 1900's when there was hardly any tour other than the Slams themselves.

For me it took a long time for Sampras to realise that better management on his schedule improved his chances at Wimbledon and even the US Open. If he played on beyond 31 I do wonder how many Slams he could've won. Granted yes Clay is energy sapping, but Nadal is only 26. I think it is only a matter of time that he starts to look at the back end of a season and cut the tournament participation down. Yes he has clocked a lot of miles, but it would take a massive collapse for me for him to start enduring bad form on Clay. If Nadal was to start suffering niggling injuries, then yes we could see a decline. He is too much of precise and driven character to allow his form to wain on Clay and not be proactive should their be any threats to his stranglehold on the surface.

A. I'm not sure about your serve vs. spin point. Big serves had their heyday when racquet frame technology was ahead of string technology and surfaces were slick from, say, 1985 - the early 2000's. Only Agassi in 1992 was able to prevail against the big servers, nobody else could and he never beat Sampras at USO or Wimbledon. The era ended because string technology aided returns and conditions slowed, not because someone found an answer with the technology that Sampras faced in the late 1990's. The other thing about your serve vs. spin point is that a serve is delivered from stationary, the spinny forehand has to be delivered by someone on the move, so is more affected by age. It's a debating point.

B. Nadal on clay is clearly something special and one has to acknowledge that past sporting history may not be a guide as to what he's capable of in the future, but one very firm signal clay sends to us is that it's a young man's surface. As you point out, a few niggles may start to take the edge of Nadal - he's done well to bring his past problems under control and that suggest that he'll work like a demon to keep at that. Two years, maybe, but four is just too much for me.

A) I think you bulldozered your point. There wasn't much in the way of baseline players at Wimbledon. You had Sampras, Ivanisevic, Kraijcek, Courier, Phillopoussiss All big servers with Slams to their names. Who would you argue at this moment in time is a Clay specialist who can challenge him consistently? You had Federer who by Cash's theory was the 2nd best Clay courter ever seen. We have Almagro, Ferrer, Monaco all percieved Dirt Rats and yet can't muster any Masters or even ATP 500 Clay titles between them. We have Djokovic, but he hasn't really built on the foundations layed by last year. I think the overstatement of movement on the spin shot is too much to put over as an easier shot to negate. If Nadal hits a FH on the run it tends to be a winner. When he hits from the back of the baseline I rarely see him scurrying after playing it. He shuffles for position. Also the power of the serve came from the shoulder. The spin shot relies much on the strings more than the arm movement. Sampras and Nadal to my memory have not suffered shoulder injuries.

B) For me 4 is not something out of the question. I would still rate him as a favourite even into his 30's on Clay because of 2 factors:

1 - There isn't the competition.

2 - His game is too naturally suited to Clay like Sampras's was to Grass.

No Nadal was unlucky play restarted - play should never have restarted after 2-0 in the 3rd...after that they were playing in a watersports park not a clay court. What other slam would have restarted? Just because clay can absorb some water isnt a reason to restart as it completely changes the dynamic of what clay court tennis should be.

Only the threat of baying media companies got that match restarted on Sunday.