Roger vs Rafa

First topic message reminder :

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+.

Henman Bill wrote:In all seriousness Nadal has benefited tremendously from the slowing down of court surfaces in the last about 10-15 years especially at Wimbledon and the US Open. That's the 2 tournaments I would like to see faster.

WFT I think should be on a speed that gives all partipants an equal chance as clay courters that qualify tend to struggle. I think a slower hard or faster clay would be good.

Nadal does lack a WTF but Federer equally lacks Davis Cup and Olympics.

I have 3 major problems accepting Nadal as GOAT. 1: fundamentally I see aggressive tennis as more favourable and it would be a shame if a player who gets the ball back in court until his opponent makes an error would be statistically the GOAT. I hate playing against people like that. 2: Nadal is a very physical player but as raw talent is arguably not the greatest. 3: Statistically he doesn't look like he can put clear water between him and others, or even match them, on things like number of years holding the year end no 1 ranking.

I have 3 major problems accepting Federer as GOAT as well. The first is his head to head record against Rafa, and the second is the fact that his game looks vulnerable to implode at any minute, his game is brittle, a fine balance between brilliance and terrible, especially against a top opponent. At times he can be really plain bad and this is not very GOATy to me. A GOAT should have a more consistent brilliance. The third is that it's difficult to say that Federer is statistically the greatest of all time, open era sure, but Laver and Rosewall quite possibly would have more slams than Federer if the open era had come earlier, same for Pancho Gonzalez who had impressive head to heads against Federer and I think more years of being the no 1 player than anyone. And then there's Bill Tilden as well.

I don't think there is one GOAT.

For Federer vs Nadal, I would probably say Federer even if Nadal equals his slam count because of other stats and records. However if Nadal gets one more than Federer I would have to put them on a par.

Can I just say I disagree that Nadal is as defensive as you imply above, or less talented in than Federer and that things like hand to eye coordination are exactly as physical as fitness and strength?

However, I'd have Federer as the Goat if anyone is but rather agree that there is no such thing- just like there isn't in boxing or most other sports. It's not that simple.

Henman Bill wrote:the second is the fact that his game looks vulnerable to implode at any minute, his game is brittle

...which is probably why he only made 18 GS finals out of 19 attempts from W05 through AO10, and allowed his brittle game to implode midway through that stretch in the SF of AO08.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there summerblues.

I mean ...... if you can only make 18 Slam Finals out of 19 over a five year stretch, you can hardly expect to be regarded as a model of consistency or sustained brilliance. He was in his prime back then, so how come he didn't make ALL 19 Finals ......???

The way his game shamefully imploded at that Aussie Open in 2008, when he could get no further than the semis, was something of a watershed moment for me, and has pretty much damaged his legacy forever. In fact ....I can still remember thinking at the time : that's the end of any claim to GOAThood as far as I'm concerned.......

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Nadals defeat showed that he had no chance on 90s grass. Sampras went 1-1 twice and 0-1 once on grass outside of Wimbledon in the years he won Wimbledon. That means He went 2-3 during three of his triumphs. And he doesn't even have the excuse of having had a monstrous clay season. Obviously never stood a chance on grass

summerblues wrote:I beg to differ.

That's obvious. And it was a voluminously stated difference too 

antonico wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:So the jump from 3 to 1 is no less difficult than a jump from 80 to 20

It is more difficult. Name a player apart from Djokovic who has done it after years at number 3

The points difference from 80 to 20 is about 1000 pts, often less.

Players who have made a that move over the last three years include Nishikori, Dimitrov, Gulbis, Isner, Janowicz.

Mats Wilander for one. Agassi another. Infact he was yo yoing in and out of the top 10 before becoming number 1 on 2 ocassions. Lendl another who done it twice. Sampras. So it isn't the most uncommon theme.

Granted players can fly up the rankings, but it doesn't make that climb easier. You forget that being at the top you get favourable draws.

Swings and roundabouts.

Agassi never lingered at #3 for three years with two guys ahead of him. When he won the US Open in 1994 he was unseeded. He reached #1 in 1995, lost it by the end of 1995, and then fell off the map to #141. Wilander reached #1, and lost it almost as fast as he got there. But to do it he had to win 3 Majors in 1 year, 1988. Djokovic got there, and managed to stay there a fairly long while. Longer than Wilander, to be sure.

Agassi lingered in the wilderness for 2 years after his meltdown post 1996 and made it back to number one with then the record breaker in Sampras and made number 1 again and held that for a year I believe.

I believe Djokovic had to win AO, Indian Wells, Madrid, Rome and Wimbledon to reach number 1 in his sterling year of 2011. I think he held it for a year if that before being undone by Federer? And even when he re-claimed it, you had no Nadal and man with a back made of glass as competition!

I find it amazing you dismiss Wilander's and Agassi's achievement of making number 1 given it was done in my opinion in tougher conditions than that of today. With Wilander he had Lendl, Becker, Edberg and even players past their prime like Connors and McEnroe to contend with who were still winning titles. Agassi had Sampras, Courier, Brugera, Rafter, Kafelnikov and fading players in Becker and Edberg too and far more surface specialists. There is no chance in hell that Djokovic faced stiffer and more complex competition and conditions.

hasn't this horse been flogged enough?

there is no such thing as GOAT irrespective of the number of titles anyone has one, for the simple reason there isn't a time-technology-fitness travel machine.

what there is, is a club of greatness, and in my opinion, all those who have won more than 10 belong there. it's admittedly an arbitrary number, but it weans out those who are more determined than the lesser ones.

There's been 25 players ranked #1 since the posted started 41 years ago. In that time, I'd hazard a guess and say a little more than 25 players have made the jump to top twenty from 80th, given the fact that every single player to ever make the top twenty would have had to.

coolpixel wrote:hasn't this horse been flogged enough?

This horse is immortal, no matter how evolved Homo Sapiens becomes, even to the level Spielberg's AI.

coolpixel wrote:there is no such thing as GOAT irrespective of the number of titles anyone has one, for the simple reason there isn't a time-technology-fitness travel machine.

But fans of players have imagination, which does act like one, depending on your subjectivity.

coolpixel wrote:what there is, is a club of greatness, and in my opinion, all those who have won more than 10 belong there. it's admittedly an arbitrary number, but it weans out those who are more determined than the lesser ones.

Even winning a single slam is a tough job, just ask Wawrinka, or perhaps Rios.

ChequeredJersey wrote:However, I'd have Federer as the Goat if anyone is but rather agree that there is no such thing- just like there isn't in boxing or most other sports. It's not that simple.

Vilas and Borg (despite his early exit from Tennis), and Le-Clerc were tremendous players on Clay and pushed the envelope of the sport. As CP points out, building a great dish, requires multiple ingredients, as does making a Tennis great require multiple facets and skills, be it H-to-E coordination or Stamina, Offence or Defence.

How much does the current medical technology impact longevity of a player (and hence number of slams played/won)? A whole treatise is possible on such. Look at Muster or Haas or Norman.

kingraf wrote:There's been 25 players ranked #1 since the posted started 41 years ago. In that time, I'd hazard a guess and say a little more than 25 players have made the jump to top twenty from 80th, given the fact that every single player to ever make the top twenty would have had to.

I suspect this is not what LK's original statement was about.  Obviously there are fewer #1 players than top 20 players, so in that sense it is harder to make it to #1.

However, I think the comparison was between (a) and (b)

(a) Given that you are around #3, how hard is it to make it to #1 vs

(b) Given that you are around #80, how hard is it to make it to top 20

You are right, there are fewer #1 players than there are top 20 players, but there are also fewer #3 players than there are top 80 players, so it is not immediately clear which transition is relatively more difficult.

I can see how there will be varying opinions on this. I do think however that the ability to rise from the lower rankings to the top 20 can be easier (it can also be easier to drop back down). All it needs is a couple of good high ranking tournament performances. A good example is Janowicz. Before his Paris indoor final in 2012 he was ranked 69. The 600 points he won moved him up to 26. He stayed about this level moving up slightly to 22 before Wimbledon 2013 where the 720 points he got for his semi final appearance moved him to 17 (more points much smaller rise in rankings). Again he stayed about the same level moving up slightly to 14 before Paris indoor 2013. He lost early there and fell back to 21. Once again he has stayed much about the same.This time moving down to 24. If he does not get to at least the Q/F's at Wimbledon this year he would probably drop out the top 40. To put it simply he only had 2 high scoring events.

To get to Number 1 a player needs to be winning or getting to the sharp end of slams and Masters 1000 events nearly every time they compete. If they are doing that on a regular basis the points are spread across a number of events so having a bad one and losing points gained the previous year may incur a drop of a couple of places at worst.

I mean more players have gone from 80-20 than 3-1, that tells you all you need to know. I mean Gael isn't exactly the model of consistency and he finished 2012 ranked #77, After this year's French, he is #20, By comparison, Djokovic, from the moment he became #3, won two slams, made two other finals, won about ten Masters before he reached #1. No comparison.

Doesn't reflect anything in my in my view.

Everyone is entitled to their view. Doesn't mean they are right though.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Doesn't reflect anything in my in my view.

So is your view then that it's harder for a player to go deep in a few tournaments, than it is for a player to win four masters, win a grand slam, make semis in two, and have a final in another (Djokovics record in the twelve months before Wimbledon '11, which, believe it or not, still wasn't good enough for #1, he had to make the final of Wimbledon to get that)? Stop the presses, the real achievers on tour are the Monfils and Isner types.

kingraf wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Doesn't reflect anything in my in my view.

So is your view then that it's harder for a player to go deep in a few tournaments, than it is for a player to win four masters, win a grand slam, make semis in two, and have a final in another (Djokovics record in the twelve months before Wimbledon '11, which, believe it or not, still wasn't good enough for #1, he had to make the final of Wimbledon to get that)? Stop the presses, the real achievers on tour are the Monfils and Isner types.

So it is easy for players having to play qualifiers for Masters Events, 500 Events and Slams to fly up the rankings and go deep even when they are faced with players ranked above them all the time?

Cor I might I just pick up a racket as it is that easy!

If you're ranked eighty, you'll be making it to direct draws of quite a few 250s and 500s, and all things being equal, should be able to make It through qualifiers of a few masters tourneys.

Bit of a misnomer claiming they face top ranked players "all the time" - 500s, and 250s really aren't that loaded, while you have a 1/4 chance of drawing a seed first round in a GS, 1/2 second round... so you have a better than 50% of getting to the third round having avoided the top players (assuming seeds follow suit). By contrast, the guy ranked #3 has a 100% chance of facing a guy ranked above above him in the semis, and finals, assuming rankings follow suit.

Neither task is easy, and trivializing either is disservice to both. It is as tough for someone to go up.

Dustin Brown at #189 before W 2013, played six matches,

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Dustin-Brown.aspx?t=pa&y=2013&m=s&e=540#

and he went up to #169. He beat GGL and Hewitt, pretty tough on Grass.

The closer to the top you are, the harder it is to bridge the gap to #1, IMVHO, because you are competing with players who are very close to you in performance.

For example for Ferrer, from #3 to #1 is a very tough road, and has been for him. Nadal was happy to be #2 to Federer's #1.

Neither are easy, of course, and I don't remember claiming otherwise, or even suggesting that. But really, it's not even close for me - Every guy who has made it to #3 would have hovered around #80 in their careers, funny how they don't all cruise to #1, having already achieved the almost miraculous task of climbing 60 spots.

kingraf wrote:I mean more players have gone from 80-20 than 3-1, that tells you all you need to know.

No it does not, unless you are asking the question "is it easier to get to #1 than to #20"?  Of course it is easier to get to #20, but I do not think that is what LK was talking about.  I thought he was talking about relative difficulty.  One way to look at it could be like this:

Wikipedia says there have been 49 players that have made it to top 3 over the years, and out of those, 25 made it to #1.  So, we could conclude that a player that makes #3 has about 50% (25 out of 49) chance of making #1.

If we knew that there have been x players that reached top 20 and y players that reached top 80, we could say that a top 80 player had an x/y chance of making it to top 20.

If x/y is bigger than 50%, we could say "it is eaiser for a #80 player to reach top 20 than for a #3 player to reach #1".  However, if x/y is less than 50%, we could come up with the opposite conclusion.

I do not know what x and y are, but it strikes me as plausible that the move from 80 to top 20 could end up being the harder one.

summerblues wrote:

kingraf wrote:I mean more players have gone from 80-20 than 3-1, that tells you all you need to know.

No it does not, unless you are asking the question "is it easier to get to #1 than to #20"?  Of course it is easier to get to #20, but I do not think that is what LK was talking about.  I thought he was talking about relative difficulty.  One way to look at it could be like this:

Wikipedia says there have been 49 players that have made it to top 3 over the years, and out of those, 25 made it to #1.  So, we could conclude that a player that makes #3 has about 50% (25 out of 49) chance of making #1.

If we knew that there have been x players that reached top 20 and y players that reached top 80, we could say that a top 80 player had an x/y chance of making it to top 20.

If x/y is bigger than 50%, we could say "it is eaiser for a #80 player to reach top 20 than for a #3 player to reach #1".  However, if x/y is less than 50%, we could come up with the opposite conclusion.

I do not know what x and y are, but it strikes me as plausible that the move from 80 to top 20 could end up being the harder one.

Sorry but using that logic, it is in fact harder to make it to #1000 from #2000, wouldn't you say? Taking that logic to its conclusion It's harder to be a paid tennis player than top ten, isn't it?

kingraf wrote:Sorry but using that logic, it is in fact harder to make it to #1000 from #2000, wouldn't you say? Taking that logic to its conclusion It's harder to be a paid tennis player than top ten, isn't it?

You are again missing the point.  If the question is:

"Is it harder to become a paid tennis player than top ten?", then obviously it is harder to become top 10.

But if the question is, for example:

"Is it harder for a top 100 player to become a top 10 player, or for a random person to become a paid tennis player?", then it is quite possibly harder for a random person to become a paid tennis player.

summerblues wrote:

kingraf wrote:Sorry but using that logic, it is in fact harder to make it to #1000 from #2000, wouldn't you say? Taking that logic to its conclusion It's harder to be a paid tennis player than top ten, isn't it?

You are again missing the point.  If the question is:

"Is it harder to become a paid tennis player than top ten?", then obviously it is harder to become top 10.

But if the question is, for example:

"Is it harder for a top 100 player to become a top 10 player, or for a random person to become a paid tennis player?", then it is quite possibly harder for a random person to become a paid tennis player.

But that's a senseless question, and adds nothing to any debate, other than attempting to belittle an impossibly difficult exercise. There is no way you can tell me achieving what 20 people must do at any given point in the tour is harder than what only 25 have ever done. Relatively difficult? Relative to what?

kingraf wrote:But that's a senseless question, and adds nothing to any debate, other than attempting to belittle an impossibly difficult exercise. There is no way you can tell me achieving what 20 people must do at any given point in the tour is harder than what only 25 have ever done. Relatively difficult? Relative to what?

Relative to their ability.  You may not like that question, but that is the context in which the question came up.  The initial claim was talking about the difficulty of ascending to #1 specifically from #3, not about ascent to #1 for a random player.  Also, you should get a feel that there is something off with your interpretation of the question because the way you think of it, the inclusion of "#3 player" and "top 80 player" would have been meaningless in the conversation.

Correct me if I'm wrong SB - but you're essentially downgrading being #3 for being a harder achievement than being #80? ie, should Wawrinka suffer a crash in form, and all the players who become #3 lose the ranking soon (ie, it becomes a more common achievement - say everyone ranked in the top ten gets there once)... then making the jump from #3-#1 suddenly becomes "relatively harder" since ten players have got there, but only Nadal has remained #1? Essentially, now that it's easier... it's relatively harder.

kingraf wrote:you're essentially downgrading being #3 for being a harder achievement than being #80?

I don't think so.  You are looking at it in absolute terms, but that is not what I am discussing.  For example, I would say this statement is true:

"It is easier for Dimi to make top 10 than it is for summerblues to become a pro and make top 20".  The first one is very likely going to happen, and the second one I doubt summerblues would achieve no matter how hard he might try.  But that has nothing to do with downgrading Dimi's move to top 10.  On absolute terms, obviously it would be a greater achievement for Dimi to get to top 10 than for SB to get to top 20, but not all discussions involve absolute terms only.

Hello

  

I am the emancipator.

The discussion is about relative difficulty as opposed to absolute difficulty, as SB has pointed out.

Which is more difficult? I don't know.

But I do know everything else.

  

emancipator - intergalactic sports correspondent, reporting from a planet near you.

But again I don't buy the "relative difficulty" argument. I mean, the one is only more "relatively difficult" because the other is more absolutely difficult. Had the achievement of reaching three been an easier and more common absolute achievement, the 3-1 jump suddenly becomes relatively harder... despite it's actual difficulty not suddenly being any harder/easier.

kingraf wrote:But again I don't buy the "relative difficulty" argument. I mean, the one is only more "relatively difficult" because the other is more absolutely difficult. Had the achievement of reaching three been an easier and more common absolute achievement, the 3-1 jump suddenly becomes relatively harder... despite it's actual difficulty not suddenly being any harder/easier.

Sure, but that is fine.

Hello eman, welcome back. Good to have you here again. How is intergalactic life? Still married? Following tennis at all these days?

Hello summer, son of blues.

Life in the outer regions is great.

But I am very busy at the moment tutoring young emancipator the second junior who arrived a month ago.

He hasn't quite grasped the names of all the stars yet.

I had been following tennis as well as playing more frequently, at least until a couple of months ago.

This is sadly just a brief sojourn.

  

emancipator

KR, remembering the context from which this had arisen should also make it clearer.  The talk was about whether "champions adjust" and about how Djokovic adjusted to go from #3 to #1.  LK was comparing it to the difficulty of the adjustment required to go from #80 to #20.

If you remember this context, it should be clear the discussion needs to be about "relative difficulty".  For example, Nole would not have to adjust at all to go from #3 to #3, yet being #3 itself would be a good achievement.  On the other hand, a top 80 player would have to adjust to become top 20 player, yet in absolute terms he would still be below Nole's #3.

emancipator wrote:But I am very busy at the moment tutoring young emancipator the second junior who arrived a month ago.

Oh great, congrats! I can see how, with such heavy responsibility on your shoulders, sojourns into the 606v2 corner of the galaxy might sadly become ever briefer and rarer.

Come and hang out, as your progeny permits, O Emancipator, at these shores!

@KR... https://i.imgur.com/SdSJO5H.png

What do you think of this graph? The dates are a clue, if you really want to go after a specific player.

LF - I've tried but I simply can't get the graph clear enough to make head or tail of it.

SB - I think I understand your statement a little better. I still don't think the comparison bears merit - But to bring up cross-era comparisons...

1) I don't think I've seen one sport where the modern athlete wins... Two weeks ago there was a consensus on the boxing thread, that a 6'7 250lbs modern Super heavyweight two time boxing champion, six time kickboxing world champ who has never been dropped would get annihilated in two rounds, by a 5'10 180lbs 70s fighter, who while good, never exactly performed a hatchet job on any major fighter... So yeah, old skool athletes get a pass, and modern athletes would always do worse. Nadal is a product of modern technology, but we'll ignore the fact his first half a dozen slams came with strings nearly as old as me.

kingraf wrote:I don't think I've seen one sport where the modern athlete wins...

Just to be clear, in the cross-generational discussion, I was not taking the view that Rafa was worse than the old players.  All I was saying is that conditions changed sufficiently that players that come on top now are not the same as the ones that would have come on top in the past.  I would probably indeed think that Rafa's skills are such that he would have struggled more in the past.  But that is not a put-down of Rafa.  I equally imagine McEnroe's skill set was such that he would have struggled in today's conditions.  I am not implying superiority of one set of talents vs another one, just thinking different people make it to the top now than in the past.

kingraf wrote:LF - I've tried but I simply can't get the graph clear enough to make head or tail of it.

It is a graph of Ranking History of a player.

Here is the raw data.

02-05-2005 7
25-04-2005 7
18-04-2005 11
11-04-2005 17
04-04-2005 17
21-03-2005 31
07-03-2005 30
28-02-2005 31
21-02-2005 39
14-02-2005 48
07-02-2005 48
31-01-2005 47
17-01-2005 56
10-01-2005 50
20-12-2004 51
13-12-2004 51
06-12-2004 51
29-11-2004 51
22-11-2004 51
15-11-2004 51
08-11-2004 51
01-11-2004 48
25-10-2004 48
18-10-2004 50
11-10-2004 51
04-10-2004 50
27-09-2004 49
20-09-2004 50
13-09-2004 48
30-08-2004 49
23-08-2004 49
16-08-2004 48
09-08-2004 71
02-08-2004 71
26-07-2004 62
19-07-2004 52
12-07-2004 57
05-07-2004 60
21-06-2004 46
14-06-2004 47
07-06-2004 47
24-05-2004 49
17-05-2004 49
10-05-2004 42
03-05-2004 44
26-04-2004 37
19-04-2004 37
12-04-2004 34
05-04-2004 35
22-03-2004 34
08-03-2004 36
01-03-2004 40
23-02-2004 40
16-02-2004 40
09-02-2004 41
02-02-2004 40
19-01-2004 41
12-01-2004 48
15-12-2003 49
08-12-2003 49
01-12-2003 47
24-11-2003 47
17-11-2003 47
10-11-2003 47
03-11-2003 47
27-10-2003 49
20-10-2003 48
13-10-2003 49
06-10-2003 47
29-09-2003 48
22-09-2003 46
15-09-2003 46
08-09-2003 45
25-08-2003 45
18-08-2003 45
11-08-2003 48
04-08-2003 48
28-07-2003 51
21-07-2003 58
14-07-2003 56
07-07-2003 61
23-06-2003 76
16-06-2003 77
09-06-2003 77
26-05-2003 75
19-05-2003 74
12-05-2003 87
05-05-2003 85
28-04-2003 93
21-04-2003 96
14-04-2003 109

laverfan wrote:

coolpixel wrote:what there is, is a club of greatness, and in my opinion, all those who have won more than 10 belong there. it's admittedly an arbitrary number, but it weans out those who are more determined than the lesser ones.

Even winning a single slam is a tough job, just ask Wawrinka, or perhaps Rios.

or perhaps ask Soderling, Philippousis Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer etc,.. they will say how difficult it is to win a Grand slam, and it not certainly talent alone. Soderling is the worst case, beats Rafa and goes on to lose to Fed in the finals, beats Fed next year and goes on to lose to Rafa in the finals   

Perhaps the two results have to be clubbed and Soderling be given a French Open trophy    

I would like to thank SB for actually understanding the point I was making.

So if we use the basis of which is more difficult Stan Wawrinka going from 3 to 1 given his ability and talent against say Adrian Mannarino current world number 80 making it to 20 with his talent and ability. On that basis will Mannarino ever make it to number 20? So the difficulty you see is greater for Mannarino than it would be for Wawrinka IMO. Take the case of Nishikori who was mentioned. Was ranked 81 in 2008 and didn't make it to 20until 2012. So based on timescales if we are using metrics, it took Nishikori 4 years to go from 81 to 20 and took Djokovic 4 years to from 3 to 1. So which is more difficult? You can't possibly answer it with great accuracy!

Going back to the point I made about the Djokovic game and the current change he is looking to make. The appointment of Becker was clearly to help him mentally in big matches and also help with volleying. Djokovic's main rival Nadal is similar to the Becker's rival in Sampras. Becker never overcame Sampras in a BO5 given they only met at Wimbledon. To me that is the equilvalent of Djokovic trying to overcome Nadal in BO5 at Roland Garros.

Djokovic has the same problem as Murray. They both like to dictate from the back of the court and from the baseline. The both frustrate the life out of me when in control of the point and the releuctance to come in and finish it off at the net. Look at Federer. He had to change because he was never going to out-rally a Nadal or Djokovic or Murray couple that with the low number of UE's they would chuck in there was never an alternative except for him to have more prowess at the net. There is more to volleying than just coming to the net. It is about intelligence. Picking the exact right moment to come to the net. Djokovic and Murray have had too much success from being baseline monsters. Djokovic beat Nadal in 2011 and onwards from the baseline! For me Djokovic would need to change his whole approach and be the aggressor and look not to engage in long rallies and have high serving percentages if the net play is to work. Federer has always been an economical player and has even had to become even more economical over the years so that he is not exhausted by the long rallies that Djokovic, Nadal and Murray like to engage in. Under Annacone Roger became so much sharper at the net. His intelligence when to come in at the net improved as did his volleying. I don't see room for volleying in the Djokovic game that will contribute to more success than he has had in the past. Simply the current conditions suit his game. It is just a lack of focus which is costing him. Look at Hewitt for example. Going back to the point HM Murdoch made about Djokovic becoming less of an aggressive competitor. The same happened to Hewitt before his long run of injuries. The fire didn't burn so brightly for Hewitt post 2003 when he lost in GS Finals to Federer and Safin.

I was in no way dimishing the achievements of Djokovic. Not a chance. Djokovic's rise to number 1 yes impressive, but in the history of those who have reached that summit for me it doesn't rank as the best I have seen.

to the question, can rafa reach 17? yes, I think he can. but if 2014 ends and he doesnt have 15, we will all rule him out

I'd like to say I strongly believe that the most important aspect in pronged success at the top of any sport, frankly, is mental fortitude and willingness to practise, toughness and performance under pressure. These trump natural skills because they can lead to said skill and optimisation of them. Djoko started winning slams when he became mentally tougher. Fed and Rafa have it. All the GoAt contenders have it and I'd say in every sport it is utterly key. This is why I believe it is far far far more likely that Macenroe would still win slams today and Rafa and Roger would 20" years ago than not. Far more.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Clever avoidance of the term 'weak era' CC

but ain't this a week era?

hawkeye wrote:

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  

Rafa made it to Halle in comparison Djoko didn't even make the 1st round in Halle, so Nadal is the warmest favorite for Halle 2014 eventhough he lost in the 1st round.

DirectView wrote:

Rafa made it to Halle in comparison Djoko didn't even make the 1st round in Halle, so Nadal is the warmest favorite for Halle 2014 eventhough he lost in the 1st round.

On initial reading, this made little sense to me. So I thought I would read it again, and assumed that the reference to 'Halle 2014' should read 'Wimbledon 2014'

And then it still made little sense to me ....... 

lags72 wrote:

DirectView wrote:

Rafa made it to Halle in comparison Djoko didn't even make the 1st round in Halle, so Nadal is the warmest favorite for Halle 2014 eventhough he lost in the 1st round.

On initial reading, this made little sense to me. So I thought I would read it again, and assumed that the reference to 'Halle 2014' should read 'Wimbledon 2014'

And then it still made little sense to me ....... 

Thats was in co-relation with HawkEye's statement of Rafa being a warm favorite over Djoko for USO.

I remember when soderling defeated rafa at paris, quite a few polls asking if rafa would ever reach double figures. he had 6 slams back then, most people said he wouldnt (I myself though so)

BTW, Nadal is around 141 weeks at No.1 now...that's 6th on the all time list and 36 weeks behind McEnroe. Not too poxy. If he does okish at Wimb he'll likely stay #1 until USOpen (provided Djokovic doesn't win Wimb, Djokovic has quite a few points to defend up to USO and beyond) so could be on around 150 by then. I think chances for YE #1 for Nadal's for a 4th year are small though.

The unknown is how arrival of Djokovic's baby will affect his summer?

naxroy wrote:to the question, can rafa reach 17? yes, I think he can. but if 2014 ends and he doesnt have 15, we will all rule him out

W may be tougher, but USO is more likely.

lydian wrote:The unknown is how arrival of Djokovic's baby will affect his summer?

You are not giving any credit to Murray-Mauresmo tandem? Murray is now done with the weaker Clay window for the year. He can do much better on HC/Grass then he did vs Nadal at RG 2014. Can he win it? Maybe!

naxroy wrote:to the question, can rafa reach 17? yes, I think he can. but if 2014 ends and he doesnt have 15, we will all rule him out

I had him as a nailed on certainty for the AO and I believe had he not been hampered that he would've stood a good chance of winning it. I will be fair and say Wawrinka played some superb stuff, but in fairness I think had the guy opposite him had more zip about him that Wawrinka like in the past would've capitulated IMO.

It's hard with Rafa to measure his consistency. 2011 and 2012 not a single HC title and yes I bear in mind he missed most of 2012. Then in 2013 he won Cincinatti and Toronto and the US Open after going out in Wimbledon and even after the early exit many forecasted doom and gloom. So off Clay his form and consistency can vary. The USO 2013 was a bonus given in the latter stages for example he faced Robredo who had no real HC pedigree, a dead on his feet Gasquet and near dead Djokovic. Granted yes the draw opened up, but it shows how clinical Nadal is in those situations and if Slam draws are to open up like that, then I would back Nadal 9/10.

The one thing that has changed is that Nadal has become more open to streaky players in tournaments. Wimbledon will be the tougher nut to crack if he is faced with a more aggressive player in the opening rounds. It has certainly showed more post USO 13 where he has lost to Djokovic, Del Potro, Ferrer, Dolgopolov, Wawrinka, Almagro, Brown. All bar one have happened in lesser tournaments rather than the Slams.

I know people talk about the luck of draws at Slams, but for me there is a lack of HC specialists lower down in the rankings hence why I think that Nadal wouldn't be vulnerable in the earlier rounds of the USO or AO especially. I think the only way Nadal would be taken out of the USO would be against a Raonic, Gulbis or Isner on AA Court and that is slim.

The French Open I don't see anyone touching him at the moment. Only probably an on fire Djokovic at best. Wimbledon he is vulnerable in the early rounds if he finds an agressive player like he has recently in Rosol, Darcis and Brown who really go for the neck. The USO and AO I think it is literally down to the draws.

Being I prefer Federer to Nadal, I think the record of 18 Slams is in site. Unless of course there is a massive surge of youth coming through that crash the rankings and I don't see that happening any time soon.