Roger vs Rafa

This topic has been done to death but what would a good tennis forum be without it?  I am sure we will all implode once the two of them retire.  So here is yet another incarnation.  The old man is less and less likely to hold his own against the young(er) rival in the here and now, and I wanted to spare him humiliation of being demolished, so I erased his age disadvantage.

That is, I looked at the slam chase between Rafa and Roger relative to their age - i.e., I graphed their slam count as the function of their age.  The result is here:



A few obseravions:

1. This one is competitive, Fed can still hold his own against Rafa when I give him five years back and let them duke it out with no age advantage given to either one.

2. Rafa started much younger, so was well ahead by the time Roger started collecting slams, but then Roger shot up in his twenties and by age 26 he overtook Rafa.

3. If Rafa wins here in Australia, he will once again inch ahead of Roger.

4. It looks like the chase for 17+ could be very competitive.  Roger was doing extremely well until 29 - so much so that Rafa is unlikely to be ahead of him at 29 - but dramatically slowed down thereafter, which could allow Rafa to reach the finish line ahead of Roger.

I personally think it is a close call at this point.  For most of their careers I thought Fed would end up ahead of Rafa, and even now I would probably still give him slightly better than 50/50 odds, but it is very close - Rafa could well end up at 18+.

Really good article, SB.

There is often a view that because Nadal is "only" 28 and needs "only" 4 more slams to equal Roger, it's likely to happen.

Yet 4 slams is quite a haul. Roger's win rate at age 29 was pretty striking. It will be tough for Rafa to follow that. And will he have Roger's longevity?

I think the next year probably decides it.

If Rafa wins 1 or none, I suspect the record might be safe. He may equal it rather than break it.

Two or more slams makes it much more likely.

The other wrinkle in the debate is if Roger can win an 18th. I tend to think not, though.

Now that Fed is getting on a bit he needs a little help when he has to face Rafa across the net

https://2img.net/h/s29.postimg.cc/4u4h0i2np/australian_open_kids_day_nadal_fdrer_cruz_hewitt.jpg

summerblues. Unless Nadal gets injured chances are he will pass Federer. Without injury he probably would have done so already. Unlike you I won't be surprised though. The first time I saw Federer play I thought "wow" and the first time I saw Nadal play I also thought "wow". But even then if asked to choose who was the better player I would have edged it to Nadal. We have been lucky in that for a time these two exceptional players were both in their prime at the same time and we could watch them compete against each other. Sigh... it's not quite like that any more and all we can do is compare records.

I like this article does have a different spin on the usual who is better debates that unfold. Its good that we can discuss whether Nadal will surpass Federer's slam count instead.

I, like many others, think it will depend a lot on Nadals' fitness, and also factor in Djokovic's form mainly as well as the likes of Murray and Del Potro and how many times they can stop him at slams.

It is remarkable how the graph shows the different paths yet at the same age they are in a similar position. Federer taking time to break through but once he did he dominated and Nadal starting early but being slowed down at times due to injury and a peak Federer standing in his way.

I never thought that Nadal would catch Federer, and part of me thinks he still won't. The fact that two slams are on his worst surface is still a massive hindrance to Nadal even if he is a better hard court player than people give him credit for.

Good article!

Well Nadal ended up having a brilliant year winning two slam titles after looking like he was going to be beaten by Djokovic in last years Roland Garros semi-final.  I can only see Djokovic and Nadal challenging for the slam titles this year - with maybe Murray also challenging at Wimbledon.  With the way Nadal has got back to No 1 at the end of last year and remaining there for some time this year, I see Nadal winning up to three slams this year but more likely one or two (depending on "fitness") and with RG no longer guaranteed (it's between him and Djokovic).

I think we might expect an improvement from Djokovic this year - who had quite a disappointing return from three slam finals.  It would also be interesting to see whether anyone else (apart from Murray) can make a challenge.  This year should also determine whether Federer can stay performing at the top level or whether age will catch up with him - it must be borderline as to whether he can remain in the top ten / get back to the top 4.


What the graph shows that despite Nadals self-attritional style of play, and with most "Federer pundits" saying Nadal will blow himself out and would have a much shorter career than Federer - Nadal has in fact kept up his top level performance and continues to do so.  The Nadal slope actually shows a slight upwards curvature whereas Federer is linear with a sharp drop off in later years.  Quite early on I made the prediction that Nadal would just keep going on and on like his uncle the Beast of Barcelona - which upset the Nadal "Hatahs" / Federer Fanatics - who were predicting a permanent body breakdown.  However it does seem it is due to breakthroughs in medical micro-surgery techniques that Nadal is partly able to keep going physically.  These new medical procedures are good for everyone - providing improvements in cartilage and tendon repairs in the body.

HM Murdoch wrote:Really good article, SB.

There is often a view that because Nadal is "only" 28 and needs "only" 4 more slams to equal Roger, it's likely to happen.

Yet 4 slams is quite a haul. Roger's win rate at age 29 was pretty striking. It will be tough for Rafa to follow that. And will he have Roger's longevity?

I think the next year probably decides it.

If Rafa wins 1 or none, I suspect the record might be safe. He may equal it rather than break it.

Two or more slams makes it much more likely.

The other wrinkle in the debate is if Roger can win an 18th. I tend to think not, though.

He's actually 27!

If Nadal can take 4+ months off every year, he can play till 35.

It also depends on how ATP/ITF want to promote Nadalovic rivalry compared to Fedal and what will get tweaked to allow it to continue.

@SB… good to see the bread-butter topic of current Tennis fora make a resurgence.

LuvSports! wrote:He's actually 27!

Yes, I was thinking in the sense of him turning 28 this season. I believe he turns 28 during RG.

HMM: Agree, four slams does not sound like a lot but at 27/28 Rafa is not the youngest anymore either.  He is reaching the age after which many players slowed down significantly.  It could be close.

HE: Maybe you are right that odds are in Rafa's favor to win 5+ slams.  I see it as very close, with odds probably being slightly against it, but the suggestion that the odds are really in Rafa's favor does not strike me as implausible either.

DJB:  Agree, relatively speaking, Rafa has not done that much on hard courts, which makes it harder for him to reach 18 (assuming 18 will be the required number).  On the other hand, if say his recent HC performances are indication that he has improved there, that might make the chase significantly easier for him.

NS: Yes, Rafa has lasted much longer than many predicted.  Funnily enough, if he does get past Roger, he will likely do it exactly because of longevity - the slope of the curve has never been as high for him as for Roger but he started earlier and will likely need to last as long or longer than Roger.

Awesome article, its nice to see an article with unbaised view   and straight to point.

Both are great players, so if Rafa beats Roger's record tally of slam or even equal it I will call him the GOAT, any other circumstance I will let Roger retain the title.

2014 could well be that make or break year for Rafa, I am pretty sure the young guns and 2nd tiers will step it up and Rafa gonna find going difficult this year and that includes RG.

I am eagerly waiting for Del Po- Rafa match in AO quarters and I want a big win for Del Po, Del Po brought the h2h 3-4 before falling injured.

The last time Del Po beat Rafa he went on a streak of 3 wins, and now he faced a win after a long wait, I am waiting for that streak to repeat.   

It's so hard to predict, which makes hawkeye's certainty a little silly frankly.

At the moment it looks more likely than not that Nadal will catch Federer on 17. I really don't think Federer will extend that number though stranger thing have happened.

Nadal is a tough out at a slam for sure, but then Federer was too with his long semi final streak until suddenly he wasn't quite any more. And if we look at who was stopping Federer winning slams after the AO 2010 (when I suspect many people thought it unlikely there'd be a two and half year gap til the next), we've got Soderling, Berdych (x2), Tsonga (x2), Stakhovsky & Robredo as well as Murray, Nadal & Djokovic. So perhaps we don't need to wait for the champions of the next generation to arrive, Nadal just needs to slip a little from his current level to falter in his task. I don't think he's ready to do that just yet though.

YvonneT. When did I say I was certain? I said "if" he didn't get injured and "chances" are he would. I think I said something very similar to your "more than likely" in fact I would say I was a little more cautious than you.

All those champions you talk about are old. Chances are if they couldn't consistently get the better of Nadal when they were all younger they won't later when they are all older. I'm not sure what you mean about having two Berdych's and two Tsonga's?

hawkeye wrote: I'm not sure what you mean about having two Berdych's and two Tsonga's?

Berdych beat Federer at W and USO ( x 2).
Tsonga beat Federer at W and RG (x 2).
Soderling beat Federer at RG ( x 1 ).



PS: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=gs#

summerblues wrote:HMM: Agree, four slams does not sound like a lot but at 27/28 Rafa is not the youngest anymore either.  He is reaching the age after which many players slowed down significantly.  It could be close.

HE: Maybe you are right that odds are in Rafa's favor to win 5+ slams.  I see it as very close, with odds probably being slightly against it, but the suggestion that the odds are really in Rafa's favor does not strike me as implausible either.

DJB:  Agree, relatively speaking, Rafa has not done that much on hard courts, which makes it harder for him to reach 18 (assuming 18 will be the required number).  On the other hand, if say his recent HC performances are indication that he has improved there, that might make the chase significantly easier for him.

NS: Yes, Rafa has lasted much longer than many predicted.  Funnily enough, if he does get past Roger, he will likely do it exactly because of longevity - the slope of the curve has never been as high for him as for Roger but he started earlier and will likely need to last as long or longer than Roger.

Relative to what?

Oops. my apologies HE - I could have sworn you'd said "Unless Nadal gets injured he will pass Federer" which if you had, would have been silly, but you didn't, so.....  

Is my other point that hard to understand? This is the list of players who've beaten Federer in a slam since his more barren spell started after the 2010 AO. It's not a list of great champions. Federer would have fairly comfortably beaten most of these players at his peak. So, even though Nadal has great H2H records against all his peers, he is at some point likely to start losing more in slams to players who are great players but not champions. Whether he beats Fed's record is, to me, a question of how far away that point is.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Relative to what?

Relative to how well he has done overall.

It's a fascinating race - their trajectories have been so different that it has been very difficult to predict and my views have swung about a bit like a pendulum.
 
I have mostly but not invariably thought that Nadal would probably end up just short of Federer, and when Federer picked up Wimbledon 2012 to go to 17 and Nadal lost at Wimbledon 2013 leaving himself on 12 I must confess that I felt that more strongly than before - 5 slams with his absence of wins on HC since the USO 2010 looked close to overwhelming.
 
But Nadal is like someone from a Bond movie who keeps managing extraordinary comebacks and making fools of predictions and pundits (whether he's a Jaws-like villain or Bond himself take your pick).
 
For me the most interesting distinguishing factor between Federer and Nadal at present is that for such a huge slam tally Nadal has relatively infrequently had a multi-slam year, 2008, 2010, and 2013 (not yet back-to-back), and 6 of his slams have been 'solitary'; compare that with Federer at 5 multi-slam and 4 solitary, or Sampras at 4 multi-slam and 6 solitary.  I suspect that to overhaul Federer he needs to have two more multi-slam years or one more year in which he takes 3/4.  Given how relatively difficult he has found that in the past it still looks like a tall order, but it's doable for a guy like Nadal.
 
As a Federer fan I freely admit that I'd rather see him keep the record, but I'm not counting Fed's chickens.  I also suspect that Federer would hate it if Nadal took that one off him - although he'd do his best not to show it.

I honestly think that Nadal will overhaul the record, and that a large factor in that is that the chasing pack don't have the quality to usurp the current crop of top players. Djokovic and Murray can only stop him so often, and I'd say he still has a good few years on his side. If we assume the next 3 RGs (a very risky assumption, granted) are his, then he's virtually there already.

I reckon he'll equal it in 2015, and beat it before the Olympics at RG.

I think Nadal with reasonable luck in terms of injuries will tie or surpass Federer. It would be kind of cool if Nadal also finished on 17 slams and yet again the two would forever be tied together in history and Fedal debates could continue for all eternity like some universal constant. To me I think he should pick up at least two more slams off of the clay and two to 3 more on the clay. Really the only statistical area I can't see Rafa surpassing fed in is weeks at number 1 and YE #1s because of the stiff competition he faces from Murray and Djoko and because his body breaks down more than Federer's body. Nadal should finish with equal or more slams, he already has more masters, and with more career tournament wins.

In this generation only Nadal can break Federer's slam record (Federer will still have several records such as being No 1 for the greatest number of weeks - Nadal can't beat that).  I would prefer Nadal to break Federer's record because he is / was the ultimate player for the conditions and the racquet technology - ultra top spin and ultra strong and ultra fit and ultra endurance and ultra mentally strong.  Sometimes his ultra strong mental strength can come across as stupidity (he is not especially versatile & sometimes needs Uncle Toni and his signalling).  Tennis deserves the champions appropriate to the conditions and technology it allows.

Djokovic on 6 slams will run out of time.  I think Djokovic is the only one of this generation now capable of a grand slam and that must be his target if he wants to have his own bit of unique history in the modern game.  I think it is going to be 50-50 Nadal and Djokovic at Roland Garros and I think Djokovic just might do it in 2014.  Of course Murray has come along and might also thwart a Djokovic grand slam, especially at Wimbledon - where Murray seems better poised on slightly slippery grass.

Ps I think if Djokovic refinds the Djokovic Mk II of 2011 - then he could prematurely end Nadal.  As mentioned by someone else Djokovic Mk II vs Nadal takes an awful lot out of Nadal and if Djokovic Mk II beats Nadal at Roland Garros (which he almost did in 2013) that could prove a mental and knee crunching killer.  But Djokovic Mk II has gone AWOL for nearly two years ... and 2013 turned out to be a "disaster" for Djokovic - losing two finals quite tamely.

Djokovic Mk II takes a lot out of Djokovic Mk II...do you not remember how he was goosed at the end of 2011. Mentally & physically I don't think Djokovic wants to go there again. Agree with the other points. A lot depends on this year for Nadal...2 more slams and he has a chance, 1 or less and I think its going to be hard to surpass Fed...but it would be a mighty achievement getting anywhere near when you think of the times out of the game he's had...e.g. must have been a shoe in for Wimb09 really. But that's life...we'll see. Agree with socal it might be cool if they both end on 17...Fedal debates forever.

lydian wrote:...Fedal debates forever.

Nah, no-one's that sad!

I think Rafa will probably do it which will be truly remarkable, especially when you consider Roger's run of slams aged 29 was primarily whilst Rafa was suffering injuries. Were Novak to suddenly suffer a similar fate then the additional slams Rafa requires would suddenly look relatively easy to acquire.

Djoko, Murray, JMDP and Soderling have also all suffered from illnesses and injuries which may have affected the total allocation of slams all around, possibly, dare I say it, leaving both Fed and/or Rafa on less than they are on now.
Fed also has had injuries and illnesses that may have cost him slams.
 
Once you start on the what if's, you can basically choose your own point to stop.

If Djokovic were accidentally run over by a bus driven by Uncle Toni tomorrow, one would think Rafa surpasses Federer's tally quite easily?

If so, then we are clearly in a weak era.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Djoko, Murray, JMDP and Soderling have also all suffered from illnesses and injuries which may have affected the total allocation of slams all around, possibly, dare I say it, leaving both Fed and/or Rafa on less than they are on now.
Fed also has had injuries and illnesses that may have cost him slams.
 
Once you start on the what if's, you can basically choose your own point to stop.

Well, as JMDP hasn't gotten to a final other than the slam he won (in great style) and Soderling has never won a slam and is mostly remembered for that one redzone blitz on Rafa in RG, where every full on shot he hit stayed in, I'm genuinely not convinced they'd have made a difference. Djokovic has also only looked better since his injury, and Murray has missed what, 1 major through his, so I know you're trying to play devil's advocate so people don't assume that a "fully fit Rafa" (such a thing is impossible given the way he plays and the fact that his knees are evidently dodgy) would win 20 Slams, but I'd say it's a far bigger leap to start attributing those slams to the likes of Soderling at least

If you were to switch around the careers of Nadal and Federer datewise, would the slam spread still be the same?

lydian wrote:If you were to switch around the careers of Nadal and Federer datewise, would the slam spread still be the same?

 
So many variables, it's like trying to calculate exactly where the raindrops will fall.

lydian wrote:If you were to switch around the careers of Nadal and Federer datewise, would the slam spread still be the same?

History is a funny thing - it depends on history - as the future is often peoples reactions to history.  Sometimes one forgets just how good Federer was - he can suddenly conjure up a brilliant set or two nowadays and then you remember just how good he was.  One would think that Nadal (plus Djokovic) are best equipped for the modern game nowadays - if all tournaments played like Roland Garros ... slow courts etc.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Djoko, Murray, JMDP and Soderling have also all suffered from illnesses and injuries which may have affected the total allocation of slams all around, possibly, dare I say it, leaving both Fed and/or Rafa on less than they are on now.
Fed also has had injuries and illnesses that may have cost him slams.
 
Once you start on the what if's, you can basically choose your own point to stop.

Well, as JMDP hasn't gotten to a final other than the slam he won (in great style) and Soderling has never won a slam and is mostly remembered for that one redzone blitz on Rafa in RG, where every full on shot he hit stayed in, I'm genuinely not convinced they'd have made a difference. Djokovic has also only looked better since his injury, and Murray has missed what, 1 major through his, so I know you're trying to play devil's advocate so people don't assume that a "fully fit Rafa" (such a thing is impossible given the way he plays and the fact that his knees are evidently dodgy) would win 20 Slams, but I'd say it's a far bigger leap to start attributing those slams to the likes of Soderling at least

 
These are players that could potentially beat the likes of Fed and Rafa, thus denying them a slam, without necessarily going on to win the slam. In the case of JMDP, for example, it's possible he will never again reach the level he was capable of before his injury, changing his entire career trajectory in ways we cannot know. Hence the futility of 'what ifs'.
 
What f Djoko had gone gluten free 2 years earlier, what if Fed hadn't got Mono, what if Murray hadn't played on for 18 months with a bad back, what if Fed hadn't had a bad back for his entire career, what if the speed of the courts had changed earlier/later, what if, what if.....
My end point is Henman winning 4 Wimbledons - he would have done it, if....

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:If you were to switch around the careers of Nadal and Federer datewise, would the slam spread still be the same?

 
So many variables, it's like trying to calculate exactly where the raindrops will fall.

They fall in the downward direction - is that good enough?

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:If you were to switch around the careers of Nadal and Federer datewise, would the slam spread still be the same?

 
So many variables, it's like trying to calculate exactly where the raindrops will fall.

They fall in the downward direction - is that good enough?

Sometimes, in the desert, they vaporize before they hit the ground.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:If you were to switch around the careers of Nadal and Federer datewise, would the slam spread still be the same?

 
So many variables, it's like trying to calculate exactly where the raindrops will fall.

They fall in the downward direction - is that good enough?

Sometimes, in the desert, they vaporize before they hit the ground.

Too many raindrops and that desert aint a desert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4VQajJ5Mws

Nore Staat wrote:If Djokovic were accidentally run over by a bus driven by Uncle Toni tomorrow,  one would think Rafa surpasses Federer's tally quite easily?

Unless Becker shuts Rafa in a cupboard and throws away the key   

JuliusHMarx wrote:Djoko, Murray, JMDP and Soderling have also all suffered from illnesses and injuries which may have affected the total allocation of slams all around, possibly, dare I say it, leaving both Fed and/or Rafa on less than they are on now.
Fed also has had injuries and illnesses that may have cost him slams.
 
Once you start on the what if's, you can basically choose your own point to stop.

The speculation is about how many slams Rafa will win in the future not how many he could have won in the past if he hadn't been injured.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Djoko, Murray, JMDP and Soderling have also all suffered from illnesses and injuries which may have affected the total allocation of slams all around, possibly, dare I say it, leaving both Fed and/or Rafa on less than they are on now.
Fed also has had injuries and illnesses that may have cost him slams.
 
Once you start on the what if's, you can basically choose your own point to stop.

The speculation is about how many slams Rafa will win in the future not how many he could have won in the past if he hadn't been injured.

Oh. Is that why Born said "especially when you consider Roger's run of slams aged 29 was primarily whilst Rafa was suffering injuries?"

Edit - that's not a criticism of Born's comment, which was perfectly fine; simply an explanation of why the area of speculation was expanded, as is often the case on many threads.

^ No it has nothing to do with Borg or his comment. summerblues article is about the slam chase between Roger and Rafa relative to their age and the question of whether or not Rafa will catch Roger.

You should read it if you haven't. What do you think?

Borg?! He's not on here is he?

My comment (the one you quoted) was a direct reply to Born's post, so I'm pretty sure it had something to do with it.

My own feeling is that he won't reach 17, purely based on the statistical evidence of the distribution of slams amongst aging tennis players. Although, given the paucity of genuine contenders at the moment, particularly for this AO and the FO, it's certainly possible if he can pick those 2 up. If not, I think it's far more unlikely. But it's all guesswork really.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

My own feeling is that he won't reach 17, purely based on the statistical evidence of the distribution of slams amongst aging tennis players. Although, given the paucity of genuine contenders at the moment, particularly for this AO and the FO, it's certainly possible if he can pick those 2 up. If not, I think it's far more unlikely. But it's all guesswork really.

But the statistical evidence that should be used isn't that of general run of the mill aging tennis players but that of comparable multi slam winning all time great aging tennis players. And there is only one of them   If you look at summerblues chart it appears that Rafa is right on track. It would help if he picked up both this years AO and FO but it's not essential although if he did I would say chances are that he would not just equal Federer but surpass him.

And there you have it.  Not to beat around the bush or to sit on the fence or even to sit on the bush while beating the fence, I want to come out, man to man and woman to woman and tell it straight up and no messing about.  

Nadal will certainly beat Roger the Federer's tally of 17 grand slams men's singles titles in the sport known to many as tennis and to others as টেনিস খেলা.  Unless he doesn't of course.  Yet it might even be a tie unless it isn't.  I think that's it.  I feel solid in my reasoning.  Who dare refute this irrefutable wisdom?

Exactly NS. Anyone who says they know what's going to happen must have access to a crystal ball the rest of us don't.

If you use the statistics for past multi slam winning all time great aging tennis players, he definitely won't make it to 18. Unless you use the other set of statistics for past multi slam winning all time great aging tennis players, in which case he will.

I said after the US Open a few months ago I thought Rafael would surpass Roger's total and I stand by that. Why? For these reasons:-

1. Logically, I cannot see anyone preventing Rafael winning the next two French Opens - he is certainly a warm favourite so to presume he will win no more slams apart from them I find hard to believe.

2. You'd be barmy if you wouldn't now recognise this as a weaker period than say a year or two ago since Roger has fallen away as serious slam contender as no one else outside of the usual contenders have stepped up. That must be another boost to Rafa's hopes of setting a new record.

The only way I see Rafa falling short now is if injury hits again or if Novak or Andy go on a mighty impressive run of slam wins in the next couple of years.

Clever avoidance of the term 'weak era' CC

Julius and Nore Staat. The future is not known. The sun may not come up tomorrow. But some things are more likely than others. It's funny how it's acceptable here to predict only one of four players will win a slam based on what's gone before. ie using past performance to predict future performance. But some (not all) are less willing to use such statistical evidence when it produces results they don't like.

Roger is a pretty good player and has been consistently good and he carried on winning slams after the age of 27. Rafa is a pretty good player and has been consistently good so IMO it is a pretty good bet that at 27 he still has a bit more winning to do.

Cheers JHM.

What cannot be argued are that, at present, there are no signs of dipping in Rafa's standards and until that is seen he remains a strong contender at any slam. Also if we are looking at like for like it could be said Federer first showed dips in form in 2011 but a year later he still added another slam win so Rafa may very well do similar even if his level dips.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

1. Logically, I cannot see anyone preventing Rafael winning the next two French Opens - he is certainly a warm favourite so to presume he will win no more slams apart from them I find hard to believe.

Rafa found it easier to win the US Open last year than he did RG. Djokovic put up more resistance on clay than he did on American hard courts. So if he is a warm favorite for RG he must be a hot favorite for the US  

True CC, although it only takes a very slight and unexpected dip e.g. Djoko after the AO 2012 - he went from being tipped for the calendar slam to winning just 1 of the next 7 slams, despite being a strong contender at all of them. Unless he wins here, Djoko will be slamless, with just 1 out of 8. Would anyone have predicted that 2 years ago?

Oh yes JHM I know. Nothing is guaranteed but Rafa has always been rated as superior to Novak so that would tell me he won't suffer such a slump unless Novak and Andy can up their levels and dominate slams between them.

Hawkeye, the US Open was his first hard court slam for two or three years whereas he rules at RG. So he will be a warm favourite for RG for the foreseeable future but on hard courts he is not such a dominant force.