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+.

Djokovic is interesting because he has had one amazing year. If you take away that one amazing year the rest of his yearly results have been consistent. So what do you base predictions for him on? If you based them on 2011 then you would have got it wrong.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

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.

The last three times Rafa played the US Open he won 2 and was in the final in 2011. That looks pretty consistent to me.

Yes but compared to RG it is a miserable record.

Its worth remembering that Jimmy Connors (though winning a mere 8 GS) 2,Wimbledon 1, AO, 5 USO over five consecutive years. The last being at the age of 31 (aging GS winner?) Obviously it was the USO  where Connors excelled. It leaves Rafa 4 years and even if he only went for the FO there is a chance at least he would equal Federer. The extra point to note is that J.C (as you all know) reached the semi-s of the USO at the ripe old age of 39. So on that basis I would suggest there is a lot more fight in the Spanish Gladiator yet. Rafa may have suffered more injuries than most and that imo would be the thing that will stop him in his tracks. Other than that he shows no sign of slowing up merely making a few essential adjustments to his game.

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly didn't expect Djoko to win 3 slams again in 2012, even after the AO win.

You could, however, equally say that in the last 9 years Rafa has won multiple slams in 3 of them and a single slam in 6 of them, and that in the previous 2 multi-slam years (before 2013) he followed that up with a single slam the next year. So to predict 2 multi-slam years in a row - 2013 and 2014 - goes against the evidence seen so far in Rafa's career. Unless it's a 'weaker period' now of course

Roger Federer won his first seven grand slam finals.

Roger Federer won 15 of his first 20 grand slam finals.  The only person to beat him in a final was Rafael Nadal.  Originally Nadal beat him at Roland Garros, then later Wimbledon 2008 (extending into the cool evening)  and then the Australian Open (played in the cool night) 2009 - cue tears.  But then Nadal had his first significant injury.

Overall Federer has appeared in 24 grand slam finals losing 7 times, 6 times to Nadal and once to Del Potro.  There was a period of four years where he successively won 3 grand slam titles a year.  So Federer got the bulk of his titles in a four year period.

It is a weaker period now than when Federer was competitive but equally Federer had the same luxury of less competition at the top in the early 2000's so for me that totally negates things. Like any era debate it is all swings and roundabouts and slam wins are slam wins no matter what.

In the end people have their feelings about things and then find the statistics that supports it, and ignore the statistics that don't support it. Most often the feeling they have is in favour of the way they'd like it to go, but not always.
If we all make enough guesses about what the future holds Rafa, Fed, Murray and Djoko, we'll all be able to say "I was right" at some point.

Who says he has to win two this year and two next to equal Federer. He could just win one or none for the next five years. Or he could win all four this year   There are lot's of combinations.

Although personally I have always thought it would be pretty cool if both Federer and Nadal end with 20 each. But I do realize that may be a little wishful thinking...

JuliusHMarx wrote:In the end people have their feelings about things and then find the statistics that supports it, and ignore the statistics that don't support it. Most often the feeling they have is in favour of the way they'd like it to go, but not always.
If we all make enough guesses about what the future holds Rafa, Fed, Murray and Djoko, we'll all be able to say "I was right" at some point.

Ha ha! My thoughts exactly. Wishful thinking can cloud cool hard logic.

Fed with 20!? Hmmm, that'd be 12 in the first weak era, 5 in the new weak era and 3 in the golden era. Roughly speaking

Personally, I am just going by what has gone before in Rafa's career and what and who stands in his way now. Assessing all of that leaves me feeling Rafa will break the record. I am not saying that with certainty as there are pitfalls but things look good for him at present.

I don't expect Rafa to fall away but some of his margins of victory last year were incredibly narrow. It wouldn't have taken much for him to have lost to Novak at RG and Montreal. And if he'd lost those, who knows where his game and confidence would be come USO?

The margins between colossal success and crushing disappointment can be tiny.

How small was the difference between the glory of Novak's wins against Fed at USO11 and Rafa at AO12, and the agony of his defeat at RG this year? Miniscule. All three results would likely have been different if one key moment had gone the other way.

Rafa could play as well as last year but a little bad luck or a small % improvement in an opponent might give the results a different complexion entirely.

True HM. I suspect the odds are against Rafa - i.e. the bookmakers odds would be against, rather than odds-on.

Why does the graph show Nadal with 14 grand slam titles when he only has 13 titles?

If Nadal wins one slam title per year then he will be 30 / 31 when he ties with Federer and 31 / 32 when he beats his record.  If he wins two titles a year then he will be 28 / 29 when he ties with Federer and 29 /30 when he beats him.  If he wins less than one title per year then he will be older than 31 / 32 when and if he beats Federers record.

Of course this assumes that Federer doesn't restart winning slams following the Edberg effect.

Nore Staat wrote:the Edberg effect.

I read that book - wasn't it the sequel to The Eiger Sanction?

HM Murdoch wrote:I don't expect Rafa to fall away but some of his margins of victory last year were incredibly narrow. It wouldn't have taken much for him to have lost to Novak at RG and Montreal. And if he'd lost those, who knows where his game and confidence would be come USO?

The margins between colossal success and crushing disappointment can be tiny.

How small was the difference between the glory of Novak's wins against Fed at USO11 and Rafa at AO12, and the agony of his defeat at RG this year? Miniscule. All three results would likely have been different if one key moment had gone the other way.

Rafa could play as well as last year but a little bad luck or a small % improvement in an opponent might give the results a different complexion entirely.

I reckon if Rafa had just closed out Indian Wells or Miami against Djokovic in 2011 (He had the lead in both) Rafa may well have already equaled Federer   But things are as they are.

hawkeye wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:I don't expect Rafa to fall away but some of his margins of victory last year were incredibly narrow. It wouldn't have taken much for him to have lost to Novak at RG and Montreal. And if he'd lost those, who knows where his game and confidence would be come USO?

The margins between colossal success and crushing disappointment can be tiny.

How small was the difference between the glory of Novak's wins against Fed at USO11 and Rafa at AO12, and the agony of his defeat at RG this year? Miniscule. All three results would likely have been different if one key moment had gone the other way.

Rafa could play as well as last year but a little bad luck or a small % improvement in an opponent might give the results a different complexion entirely.

I reckon if Rafa had just closed out Indian Wells or Miami against Djokovic in 2011 (He had the lead in both) Rafa may well have already equaled Federer   But things are as they are.

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 closed out certain matches.

Just kidding - carry on.

Rafa could play as well as last year but a little bad luck or a small % improvement in an opponent might give the results a different complexion entirely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HM that could be said about anyone... a % improvement in Rafa´s game and bad luck with injury in an opponent.  This is debate is based purely on what is as we speak. Who say that Novak will be at his peak fitness during the whole of 2014.. he has been reasonably fortunate up until now.  And from what Ive seen all the top players have suffered with some kind of injury.. or "off the boil performances" at crucial times. So many factors come into play it is not impossible that Rafa can equal or surpass Fed by the very same token Rafa´s performance many well drop. No one (no not even me JM) can expect another year like last year for Rafa 

JuliusHMarx wrote:True HM. I suspect the odds are against Rafa - i.e. the bookmakers odds would be against, rather than odds-on.

It's so hard to call.

It doesn't 'feel' like a lot but if we reverse engineer it, it will take 5 more slams to beat the record. It took Rafa 3 years to win his last 5 slams. If it takes that long for the next 5, will he still be going strong at nearly 31?

Of his 9 slam winning years, 6 have included 'only' 1 slam. So his usual rate of slam wins also requires him to be winning into his 30s.

This year is make or break as far as the record goes I suspect.

A bird in the hand is apparently worth two in the bush ... according to Edberg. So Nadal has to find 8 birds in the bush to tie with Federer.


Hmm I'll have to watch the Eiger Sanction ... classical art professor, mountain climber, professional assassin - seems plausible.

Haddie-nuff wrote:HM that could be said about anyone... a % improvement in Rafa´s game and bad luck with injury in an opponent.

I agree. We should pretty much expect nuances and luck, both good and bad, to come into play. And when the margins are so narrow, it makes predictions so hard.

Nore Staat wrote:A bird in the hand is apparently worth two in the bush ... according to Edberg.  So Nadal has to find 8 birds in the bush to tie with Federer.


Hmm I'll have to watch the Eiger Sanction  ... classical art professor, mountain climber, professional assassin - seems plausible.

It's not as good as The Day Of The Lendl, but vastly superior to Ice Station Becker.

Another way of looking at it:

If Rafa wins half the slams he enters from now on, it will take him until RG16 to win the required 5. That will be the tournament where he turns 30.

If he wins a third of the slams he enters, it will take him until Wimbledon 17, by which time he will be 31.

In those terms it seems much tougher.

Especially if you are counting Wimbledon which personally I dont think he will win again.. However he has a fighting chance in the rest. imo

Life is not a statistic.  Each future Nadal grand slam win should be considered as a unique event to be appreciated and cherished for its own sake (the "das Ding an sich" of Kant).  It should not be considered merely as a peg towards the hill of Federer's own making.  By the power of the great sky fairy of the Holy Knee Cap make it so and enjoy the tennis.

 I wonder how many slams Djokovic is expected to win in the next 4 years? Seeing as how is aging and his average so far has been nearly one/year (taking figures from 2007-2013)?

Haddie-nuff wrote:Especially if you are counting Wimbledon which personally I dont think he will win again.. However he has a fighting chance in the rest. imo

Really?

Nore Staat wrote:Life is not a statistic.  Each future Nadal grand slam win should be considered as a unique event to be appreciated and cherished for its own sake (the "das Ding an sich" of Kant).  It should not be considered merely as a peg towards the hill of Federer's own making.  By the power of the great sky fairy of the Holy Knee Cap make it so and enjoy the tennis.

Ha ha! But neither should every slam win by Nadal steal anything away from Federer. Federer's slams should be equally cherished for their own sake. Some sensitive people take it a an affront to Federer every time Nadal wins a slam...


Well I suppose now that I think about it maybe some in the past may have been...

hawkeye wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Life is not a statistic.  Each future Nadal grand slam win should be considered as a unique event to be appreciated and cherished for its own sake (the "das Ding an sich" of Kant).  It should not be considered merely as a peg towards the hill of Federer's own making.  By the power of the great sky fairy of the Holy Knee Cap make it so and enjoy the tennis.

Ha ha! But neither should every slam win by Nadal steal anything away from Federer. Federer's slams should be equally cherished for their own sake. Some sensitive people take it a an affront to Federer every time Nadal wins a slam...


Well I suppose now that I think about it maybe some in the past may have been...

Some sensitive people take it as an affront to tennis every time Murray wins a slam...

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Especially if you are counting Wimbledon which personally I dont think he will win again.. However he has a fighting chance in the rest. imo

Really?

Yes HE.. Wimbledon is totally the wrong surface for Rafa coming directly from clay  as he does .. Even Toni has virtually said as much. It puts too much pressure on his knees

hawkeye wrote: I wonder how many slams Djokovic is expected to win in the next 4 years? Seeing as how is aging and his average so far has been nearly one/year (taking figures from 2007-2013)?

I'm still working on the premise that he will blow most of his big opportunities. I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if he won none.

I'll review my opinion if and when he sorts himself out.

hawkeye wrote:
Unless Nadal gets injured chances are he will pass Federer. Without injury he probably would have done so already.

This seems a very bold statement to me, particularly the second part.  Nadal needs 5 slams to pass Federer.  Has he even missed that many slams through injury? Of course, there would have been a 2 slam swing in Nadal's favour if one of these hypothetical slams was a steal from Federer.  However, off the top of my head, I can't recall any instances where this could have been the case.  Would be interested if HE can name the 5 slams that she thinks Nadal probably would have won had it not been for injury.

All of them .
Off the top of my head aus 06, wimby 09, us '12, aus '13. That would be tied then I guess, but he wouldn't have won aus 06, wimby arguable, US & Aus good chance, so maybe 2 then.

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

Excellent and controversial question, if Nadal had been playing against the rollover boys I think he would dominate them as effectively as Federer and then when Fed would rise up he would still have the upperhand in the matchup against the younger Federer. If Fed came up with Murray and Djoko and Rafa had 4 or 5 years to lord it over weaker competition I think we could see Fed's slam number reduced by 3-5 slams while Nadal's slam numbers go up to 20 plus.

Maybe HE meant more in terms of injuries slowing Nadal's early career (I don't know - just like playing Devils Advocate). Nadal turned pro in 2001, was a top 100 player by 2003, but only made his Roland Garros bow in 2005 because of injuries. Similarly, having become the youngest player since Becker to make the 3rd round of Wimbledon (2003) - He skips the tournament the next year with an injury. The story runs true in Australia - Having made it to the 4th round in 2005, and then winning a Slam, and proving he could beat Federer on hard court... he misses the 2006 edition. I think during a thread during last years Wimbledon upset, it was calculated that Rafa missed 144 weeks of tour action due to injury...

I don't like hypothetical situations, especially ones involving sufficiently successful players (vs say, guys like Haas or Ancic), but I think Nadal's case is a bit special - look at Murray's 2007-ish injury, and how much momentum and time that cost him in getting back to where he was, and then surpassing it. Contrast that with Nadal's 2004 injury, and how quickly he surpassed his previous best after that... Creates a more relevant (but equally futile, of course) "what if?" scenario.

You mean "what if" Murray hadn't had that injury - he might have taken a few more slams off Rafa by now? Yes, I see what you mean

I will not stand for you Machiavellianism, Groucho... I won't actively try to stop it - but I certainly won't stand for it

Nore Staat wrote:Why does the graph show Nadal with 14 grand slam titles when he only has 13 titles?

The part of the graph from 13 to 14 is a dashed line (not a solid line) to indicate where Rafa will be if he wins at this AO.  Apologies if it ended up looking confusing.

I think Novak is very close to him on clay as well. He has beaten Nadal in the finals of every clay court Masters event and some of those victories have been very one sided. And the last couple of years he has lost very tight matches to Nadal at RG. Assuming that Nadal will just continue winning RG every year I think is a big assumption. Novak beat himself last year more than lost to Nadal. I think Nadal is a threat at every slam and Djokovic similarly. They have to in my mind go in as 1 and 2 favorites for the forseeable future at each and every slam. Murray maybe gets in there as the favorite at wimby over Novak. But in terms of on hardcourts Nadal in my mind the last couple of years is greatly improved. You rarely see those losses to Gonzalez, Davy, Tsonga, or blake type players that were all to common in the early years.

socal1976 wrote:

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

Excellent and controversial question, if Nadal had been playing against the rollover boys I think he would dominate them as effectively as Federer and then  when Fed would rise up he would still have the upperhand in the matchup against the younger Federer. If Fed came up with Murray and Djoko and Rafa had 4 or 5 years to lord it over weaker competition I think we could see Fed's slam number reduced by 3-5 slams while Nadal's slam numbers go up to 20 plus.

That would leave Djoko with 1, maybe 2 (or maybe 0) slams and a career high of No. 3, maybe 2. A price socal would willingly pay, if not Djoko himself.  

I think djokovic finishing with 10 slams would be a great achievement. If that included a French open title too he would have to be considered a true all time great.

I think fed will finish with 17, nadal may draw level with him but not sure he will pass him out.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

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

Excellent and controversial question, if Nadal had been playing against the rollover boys I think he would dominate them as effectively as Federer and then  when Fed would rise up he would still have the upperhand in the matchup against the younger Federer. If Fed came up with Murray and Djoko and Rafa had 4 or 5 years to lord it over weaker competition I think we could see Fed's slam number reduced by 3-5 slams while Nadal's slam numbers go up to 20 plus.

That would leave Djoko with 1, maybe 2 (or maybe 0) slams and a career high of No. 3, maybe 2. A price socal would willingly pay, if not Djoko himself.  

Not necessarily. I suspect Socal would probably give Rafa most of his additional ones in tournaments like US03, FO04 etc.

It is an interesting, if impossible, question. I suspect Rafa would not have been able to win RG at his first attempt if he were Fed's age. He might also have been influenced by the general Spanish tradition to bypass Wimbledon.

Yeah but it would mean Fed would only be a year older than Djoko, and with Fed in his prime Djoko would be getting trounced  (Controversial!)

Every time I see an article like this, i am reminded of doing it in 2009. see below

.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A54526359

and the lesson I learned from that is that Nadal probably will not burn out as was believed then and he will have the longevity. I think its right to say that this is a very important year for Nadal if he is to challenge Federer's record but at this point I think he has a great chance of surpassing Federer.

I couldn't type in a link. put in the "www"

This is a good comparison of where they are relatively, http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Nadal.html.  Same Slam tally and almost level-pegging in terms of numbers of tournament wins and, interestingly, also total matches played, although Nadal has a much higher winning %.  If you look at their relative ranking points Federer's career moved to a peak in 2007 from which there has been slow decline, Nadal has been much more up and down http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Federer_Nadal_rankingpoints.GIF, and their rate of ATP wins shows a similar pattern with Nadal's rate oscillating above and below Federer's http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Federer_Nadal_ATP_Titles.GIF.
 
What all these figures and Nadal's own career show is that things can change amazingly quickly, and change right back; as HMM has said this is because the margins at the top are tiny.  I'd say that Djoko is not going to repeat 2011 again, but he's still a threat at every slam (Wimbledon less so), Murray is a threat at Wimbledon and slightly less USO/Aus, I'm delighted by his form so far, but Fed does not feel like a potential slam winner anymore.  Then we should not forget the doughty opponents Nadal faces in his own lower limbs and Father Time (or rather, pure match mileage).
 
If one were to extrapolate from the last 8 months 4-5 slams seems very attainable for Nadal, if one looks further back at the relative ups and downs of his career and also were to stand back to acknowledge how much has got to go right for 1-2 slams, let alone 4-5, it remains an achievable but nonetheless very big ask.
 
I think Nadal has got a very good chance; he has got to pick up three or more slams over 2014-2015 to keep up his hopes of passing Federer, and probably at least two of them this year.  If he starts the 2016 season on 15 slams at the age of 29, I suspect that 18 slams will look very far away.  
 
I think quite a lot hangs on the upcoming SF - if Federer wins the match that would be a big blow to Nadal's chances.  If Federer were to win the title that would be close to game over - but I don't expect either outcome.
 
Finally, this chart shows how age has caught up with the great players in the Open Era, with Agassi and Laver being the great multi-slam exceptions - Agassi was relatively fresh having missed out a big chunk of his career in 1996-1998, and Laver's slams were at the very beginning of the Open Era.  Can Nadal be another exception? http://www.tennis28.com/slams/wins_age.html

Nadal's tally of Majors is better than it looks on the face of it when you consider he missed playing five of them since he turned pro: 2004 French Open; 2006 Australian Open; 2009 Wimbledon; 2012 US Open and 2013 Australian Open. Still, whether he gest past whatever Federer ends up with is another matter entirely. Even if he does, there is no way to assess he's in any way better than Federer. Truth is, Federer has a career of such mind boggling feats which Nadal will never come close to duplicating. Federer has:

*237 uninterrupted weeks as World #1, 302 total weeks
*Reached the Final of every Major at least 5 times
*Has won 3 of the 4 Majors at least 4 times each
*23 consecutive appearances in Major Semi Finals.

It's remarkable when you think that Federer has been in 5 French Open Finals, which is more French Open Final appearances than Lendl (4), Guga (3), Courier(3) or Brugera(2) - each of whom won RG at least twice. If he manages to win the Australian now (which is possible) that would be 5 wins in 3 different Majors. This is simply astounding. It's something Nadal will never come close to matching, let alone players like Djokovic or Murray coming close to matching. Federer's career is one chock full of milestones that are unlike anyone before him, and it's his career that will be the standard by which all future greatness will be measured.

Nadal, for his part, has the opportunity now to carve out his own uniqueness in tennis history. Starting with his dominance on clay. Not just the French Open. Nadal has 8 titles in 3 different tournaments: Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, and Barcelona. If you lower the threshold to 7 titles you can add Rome to that list. It's a dominance of a surface that's unprecedented. It's scary to think he could end up with a double digit tally of French Opens before he hangs up his racquet. Add in 3 Davis Cups and Olympic Singles Gold and he has a career that has it's own unique level of greatness. If you ask most players today - or even from yesteryear - most of them will say Federer is in fact the best there has ever been at what he does. His overall career backs that up. What may be beneficial for Nadal now is that his career to date has really been intertwined with Federer as almost a single unit: "Fedal" as it's called. But at 27 and Federer at 32, Nadal may be able to move forward and establish his own legacy apart from Federer. His matches with Djokovic over the last 3 years have gone a long way to achieving that. We really fortunate in that we've gotten to see Federer and Nadal do what they have been doing over the last 9 years.

TRuffin - I think you're right to say (over on the Day. 10 thread) that win or lose this has been a great tournament for Federer. He has proved - to himself more than anyone - that after a truly horrid 2013 (when it looked like pretty much everything was unravelling), he still has the ability and motivation to compete strongly at the start of a new season, whilst seemingly close to full fitness once again.

Now approaching 33, he wants more than anything to make it to the business end of Slams and Masters for as long as possible. I believe that once the day comes when he feels this is beyond him is the day he will call time, with surely no interest in travelling the world for the sake of a few more 250 and 500 titles here & there.

In truth, it's quite something that he is still featuring heavily at this AO, and taking out big names along the way - as well as some not so big, but very young guys who you would think should be causing him much more trouble in his old age. I read somewhere that of the last 43 Slams in which he has competed, starting from his first Wimbledon title back in 2003, he has now made the SF's or better on 34 occasions. It beats by three even the remarkable SF record of Jimmy Connors ;  and of course Jimbo's personal record took several more years to compile. When Federer does go out early in Slams, it's still a rare enough event to generate front page headlines.

Looking to tomorrow's showdown, I fully expect Rafa to be too strong, if only because a ) he invariably seems to battle through any perceived issues at the Slams, notwithstanding doubts/concerns arising from previous round performances and b) we know what a good matchup it is for Rafa and the confidence that gives him

It's now almost two years since Fed beat Rafa in straights at Indian Wells  (also an SF) and in 2013 he lost all four encounters. But of course Rafa was on fire last year, sweeping  virtually all before him with a hugely impressive ten titles, just one short of equalling his career best.

So let's see what happens, and if the ageing Fed can at least push Rafa hard then it should help in continuing to gradually rebuild the confidence and competitiveness that was lost in 2013.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yeah but it would mean Fed would only be a year older than Djoko, and with Fed in his prime Djoko would be getting trounced  (Controversial!)

I know you said this in jest, but I genuinely think that all three are of similar ability when placed at their respective peaks. It's difficult to say what would've happened if Nadal were put in Federer's place (earlier), just too many variables. For example, it's widely regarded that Nadal prefers to hunt rather than be hunted, rankings and slam-wise. Would he still have had the same desire to succeed if he didn't have such a dominant athlete to surpass early on? Even a 1% slant either way on such matters is huge at the top level. In that sense, Federer is 'lucky' to have begun when he did; but he seized the opportunity incredibly well. As kingraf eloquently put it in another thread, he found the winning formula and drove it like it was stolen.

Federer himself has downplayed his achievements versus Laver in particular, saying that it's easier for modern players now as they've the ones chasing the records, rather than setting them. Ironically, of course, he's now in that position himself, whilst Nadal still has a rabbit to chase. It's an underrated aspect of both their careers - the will and desire to keep their motivation high, despite all of their achievements.

I still think Nadal will overhaul him...just. And if he does, it will be absolutely deserved, but Nadal will never fully put the debate to bed even if he takes the slam total record.