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+.

Rafa has the head to head record. Its his only claim to being the greater player. Everything else favours Roger. Casual fans can argue that Nadal is greater but people who understand things like match-up should know that there can be no argument

I wouldnt want 17 slams with 10 being roland garros

I prefer more variety now that he has 8 rg already

I doubt he gets there there anyway but who cares, he has already achieved far more than I ever dreamed

when he started I dreamed of a few roland garros and thats it. but then he began to reach finals at wimbledon and the dream begun...

years later he has 13 slams... crazy

SemiFinal 1) Rafa vs Federer (with increased S&V following Edberg)
42 grand slam final appearances between them and 30 grand slam titles

SemiFinal 2) Berdych vs Wawrinka
1 grand slam final appearance between them and zero grand slam titles. They have a total of 4 semi-final appearances and 12 QF appearances between them (not including AO 2014)

I love it, I will enjoy all this groundswell Federer love bordering on Muslim's going to the hajj. It will be fun to see the predictable outcome to this rivalry. Nadal's H2H with Federer is not 14 or soon to be 15th reason he is better than Federer. The guy has missed like 2 or 3 years of his peak due to injuries and FACED INCREDIBLY MORE DIFFICULT COMPETITION, and he most likely will still eclipse the annointed Swiss one.

Lionel Hutz wrote:Rafa has the head to head record. Its his only claim to being the greater player. Everything else favours Roger. Casual fans can argue that Nadal is greater but people who understand things like match-up should know that there can be no argument

That's not true. He also has the masters, and the h2h vs fed is not that important I agree, but the h2h vs almost every single player he played more than 3 times is incredible. I think Roger is the GOAT but the way you are being so dismissive and saying there can be no argument is laughable

I still don't see how you can definitively put either of them ahead of Laver, Borg or Sampras.

You can't. You can't really compare between eras at all

Unless it's the era where Fed was winning against the era Djoko was winning - right socal?

I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I give him a decent shot at Nadal here. One has to think that Rafa is inhibited on serve and probably also on his forehand by the blisters. Fed has an amazing chance to get to 18 slams and probably put the target for Rafa a long way into the distance.

The back is an on-off thing. It's not just been last year, it was first diagnosed before he won any slams I think. I suspect as time has gone on, it's gradually got more and more 'on', until last year it was continually problematic. Before that it was more sporadic.

Born Slippy wrote:I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I give him a decent shot at Nadal here. One has to think that Rafa is inhibited on serve and probably also on his forehand by the blisters. Fed has an amazing chance to get to 18 slams and probably put the target for Rafa a long way into the distance.

I think Nadal is the strong favourite, but on paper Federer is in a position to put him under more pressure than he has managed over the last 18 months. Federer has got to come out all guns blazing and win the first set. If Federer wins this match it is likely to be an important step towards protecting his haul of 17 slams as the record - although I doubt a guy with his experience is worrying about that.

I reckon Fed will do just that barry - and win the first set. Then lose in 4.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I reckon Fed will do just that barry - and win the first set. Then lose in 4.

Yup, just like last time they met in Aus (and Cincinnati - although that was in 3), or perhaps a repeat of the heartbreak at RG 2011 is on the cards, get a break up in the 1st set, muff it when serving for the set, then get rolled up, perhaps taking one defiant set when it's too late to stem the Nadal momentum.

ChequeredJersey wrote:That's not true. He also has the masters, and the h2h vs fed is not that important I agree, but the h2h vs almost every single player he played more than 3 times is incredible. I think Roger is the GOAT but the way you are being so dismissive and saying there can be no argument is laughable

I've always thought that this was a more relevant point to Nadal's greatness. Yes, the Federer H2H is nice, but the fact that he also bullies the entirety of the tour sans Djokovic is staggering. I can't think of a more consistent match competitor than Nadal, in any sport. The man is truly incredible.

I think the H2H against Federer is very significant, particularly because it is corrosive to Fed's self confidence. Look at what he does to the rest of the tour - other than Rafa I think his only losing H2H is with Murray, and that's close (now 10-11), he's just ahead of Novak and is miles ahead of almost everyone else, in particular his close contemporaries. He knows that even now his best tennis is too good for them - Rafa is the one exception.

Yes, I know all the arguments about how the strengths of Rafa's game exploits the (relative) weakness in Roger's (inability or unwillngness to hit through the high backhand), but I also think sometimes Federer just lacks the belief to even try to compete. Perhaps Edberg's infleunce, and the changes he appears to be instigating in Federer's tactics, could be beneficial here. We'll know more this time tomorrow.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Lionel Hutz wrote:Rafa has the head to head record. Its his only claim to being the greater player. Everything else favours Roger. Casual fans can argue that Nadal is greater but people who understand things like match-up should know that there can be no argument

That's not true. He also has the masters, and the h2h vs fed is not that important I agree, but the h2h vs almost every single player he played more than 3 times is incredible. I think Roger is the GOAT but the way you are being so dismissive and saying there can be no argument is laughable

Nadal at his peak loses to players that peak Federer would never have lost to. And Federer has had greater competition. After seeing off Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safer and being so dominant he had to contend with a new breed playing virtually a different game and still managed to win more majors and get back to number one. There hasn't been a great player to topple the current crop.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I still don't see how you can definitively put either of them ahead of Laver, Borg or Sampras.

100% agree. You put any of the current crop on 90's grass against Pete and only Roger has a play, and I still favour Sampras. You give Pete homogenised surfaces to his liking so he doesn't have to meet surface specialists and maybe he gets more.

It's like trying to compare Sebastien Vettel with Jim Clark. Impossible.

Lionel Hutz wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Lionel Hutz wrote:Rafa has the head to head record. Its his only claim to being the greater player. Everything else favours Roger. Casual fans can argue that Nadal is greater but people who understand things like match-up should know that there can be no argument

That's not true. He also has the masters, and the h2h vs fed is not that important I agree, but the h2h vs almost every single player he played more than 3 times is incredible. I think Roger is the GOAT but the way you are being so dismissive and saying there can be no argument is laughable

Nadal at his peak loses to players that peak Federer would never have lost to. And Federer has had greater competition. After seeing off Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safer and being so dominant he had to contend with a new breed playing virtually a different game and still managed to win more majors and get back to number one. There hasn't been a great player to topple the current crop.

Were they better than any of the current bunch really or do you just think that because they occasionally beat Federer? You can't state things so obviously subjective as facts and expect to have your opinion taken seriously

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Lionel Hutz wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Lionel Hutz wrote:Rafa has the head to head record. Its his only claim to being the greater player. Everything else favours Roger. Casual fans can argue that Nadal is greater but people who understand things like match-up should know that there can be no argument

That's not true. He also has the masters, and the h2h vs fed is not that important I agree, but the h2h vs almost every single player he played more than 3 times is incredible. I think Roger is the GOAT but the way you are being so dismissive and saying there can be no argument is laughable

Nadal at his peak loses to players that peak Federer would never have lost to. And Federer has had greater competition. After seeing off Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safer and being so dominant he had to contend with a new breed playing virtually a different game and still managed to win more majors and get back to number one. There hasn't been a great player to topple the current crop.

Were they better than any of the current bunch really or do you just think that because they occasionally beat Federer? You can't state things so obviously subjective as facts and expect to have your opinion taken seriously

What do you mean by current bunch.

@Lionel… I have deleted two duplicate posts. (which were the same as ^^^^).

Born Slippy wrote:I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I give him a decent shot at Nadal here. One has to think that Rafa is inhibited on serve and probably also on his forehand by the blisters. Fed has an amazing chance to get to 18 slams and probably put the target for Rafa a long way into the distance.

Yep, how long have we heard about Federer declining from the time he was in his mid 20s, when we see every other pro out there having their best years in that period. Absolutely spot on here. And players have great runs in their late 20s and early 30s who had lengthy histories of serious injury that can't be compared to Fed's relative good luck with injuries.

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I give him a decent shot at Nadal here. One has to think that Rafa is inhibited on serve and probably also on his forehand by the blisters. Fed has an amazing chance to get to 18 slams and probably put the target for Rafa a long way into the distance.

Yep, how long have we heard about Federer declining from the time he was in his mid 20s, when we see every other pro out there having their best years in that period.

Baghdatis? Hewitt? Safin? Djokovic (now slamless at 26)? There's a long list of players who have declined from mid-20s onwards.

@CJ… Federer has held 3 slams thrice in his career. He came close (2 points from victory @USO 2009) to holding all four in 2009-2010 (not a CYGS though). Dare I mention the WTF? The QF streaks, SF streaks, the RG finals, etc.

Nadal has his own records. The Clay story is synonymous with Nadal.

GOATness should not be a derivative of pure numbers or specific H2h s. (Even though I have alluded to numbers to show dominance not for the sake of numbers).

@SoCal… Every player is responsible for their own injuries, so an injury excuse is a non-sequitur vis-a-vis a career.

Magnus Norman could have won the RG, Djokovic could have won the RG.

laverfan wrote:@Lionel… I have deleted two duplicate posts. (which were the same as ^^^^).

Thanks Laverfan. I'm using the desktop version on my phone. I can't seem to quote others using the mobile version

laverfan wrote:@CJ… Federer has held 3 slams thrice in his career. He came close (2 points from victory @USO 2009) to holding all four in 2009-2010 (not a CYGS though). Dare I mention the WTF? The QF streaks, SF streaks, the RG finals, etc.

Nadal has his own records. The Clay story is synonymous with Nadal.

GOATness should not be a derivative of pure numbers or specific H2h s. (Even though I have alluded to numbers to show dominance not for the sake of numbers).

@SoCal… Every player is responsible for their own injuries, so an injury excuse is a non-sequitur vis-a-vis a career.

Magnus Norman could have won the RG, Djokovic could have won the RG.

I count four times

2004,
2006
2007
2009/2010

Never sure about that 2009/10 one, as the US Open was the third leg and AO2010 may have panned out differently if Federer was on the brink of holding all four simultaneously. The weight of history always seemed to hang heavy at RG when Federer was on the verge then, and, indeed, on Djokovic in 2012.

Anyway guys & gals, enjoy the match if you can. I must remind myself that's it's only a game, and one played between two men who don't even know we exist.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I give him a decent shot at Nadal here. One has to think that Rafa is inhibited on serve and probably also on his forehand by the blisters. Fed has an amazing chance to get to 18 slams and probably put the target for Rafa a long way into the distance.

Yep, how long have we heard about Federer declining from the time he was in his mid 20s, when we see every other pro out there having their best years in that period.

Baghdatis? Hewitt? Safin? Djokovic (now slamless at 26)? There's a long list of players who have declined from mid-20s onwards.

Yes Djokovic is in the midst of 28-1 crisis I agree, a total washout at age 27. Please look at ferrer, Lopez, Youz, Hass etc. To just name a few the days where tennis players like gymnast were out of it by their mid to late 20s or just hanging on after that are long past. We are seeing it with the oldest top 100 in history. That is why all these historic trends and stats about how few players in their late 20s and early 30s win slams because you have to factor in another historic trend on the tour, the top players playing great tennis (at their respective talent levels) for longer and longer. The reasons are varying from better surgeries, to more money, to the changing conditions, and superior training techniques and preventive training.

He said there is a long list. You came up with a pathetic exception. The vast majority of players are spent by 28. Nadal has not long to go either.

first match in a long time I feel federer can win
(I know he won not long ago (london 2012) but still I always think nadal is going to win since 2008)

I am a nadal fan and I see no debate here. federer is the greatest i ve seen. and I ve seen since mcenroe

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I give him a decent shot at Nadal here. One has to think that Rafa is inhibited on serve and probably also on his forehand by the blisters. Fed has an amazing chance to get to 18 slams and probably put the target for Rafa a long way into the distance.

Yep, how long have we heard about Federer declining from the time he was in his mid 20s, when we see every other pro out there having their best years in that period.

Baghdatis? Hewitt? Safin? Djokovic (now slamless at 26)? There's a long list of players who have declined from mid-20s onwards.

Yes Djokovic is in the midst of 28-1 crisis I agree, a total washout at age 27. Please look at ferrer, Lopez, Youz, Hass etc. To just name a few the days where tennis players like gymnast were out of it by their mid to late 20s or just hanging on after that are long past. We are seeing it with the oldest top 100 in history. That is why all these historic trends and stats about how few players in their late 20s and early 30s win slams because you have to factor in another historic trend on the tour, the top players playing great tennis (at their respective talent levels) for longer and longer. The reasons are varying from better surgeries, to more money, to the changing conditions, and superior training techniques and preventive training.

You said 'every pro'. It's not.

Well #14 beckons.  If Nadal wins on Sunday, and he's the overwhelming favourite, and picks up another slam this year that's a big step towards #18.
 
It's funny to cast one's mind back to Sampras in the box at Wimbledon 2009 and saying that he had thought his slam record would last more than 9 years.  Quite extraordinary to think that the record of the guy who overtook him would start coming under quite the threat that has evolved within another 5 years.

I'd really like Fed and Rafa to both retire at the same time on something like 18 slams each

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd really like Fed and Rafa to both retire at the same time on something like 18 slams each

Do you want this GOAT debate to be eternal?

laverfan wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'd really like Fed and Rafa to both retire at the same time on something like 18 slams each

Do you want this GOAT debate to be eternal?

It will be anyway

Btw has anyone else seen any report of what Federer was moaning at the umpire about today?

I just read this article by Steve Tignor claiming it was Nadal's grunting:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/01/step-thought-shotand-three-setsahead/50396/#.UuKQPU3FI5s

Is that why Federer was grunting more himself and shouting after almost every point he won for a while? Has anyone else seen any other reason why Federer was moaning?

I would say now is probably the tipping point when I am starting to give Rafa better than 50% chance to win this race.

He is a hot favorite for Sunday and must be odds-on for RG. If he wins both, he will be at 15, while being the current holder of 3 out of 4 - indicating he is not just inching towards 17 with last gasps but powering there.

Of course, it is not a given unil he gets there - I suppose a lightning could strike from the blue and he could lose on Sunday and then again in June at the French (though how many of us really believe it would happen?), and I suppose Roger could still in theory pick up a slam or two to make it harder to catch him, but at this point I - really for the first time - think that the odds are in Rafa's favor.

I think nadal is favourite for sunday, but its not done. anyway, for roland garros I have the feeling that its noles year. and I would be happy for him
I think nadal will not get to 17. but who cares really. its not a matter of numbers once you have achieved that many. its a matter of enjoying the game. I would love another wimbly anyway

naxroy wrote:but who cares really. its not a matter of numbers once you have achieved that many.

In a sense it is never a matter of numbers - but we dissect them anyway

naxroy wrote:I think nadal is favourite for sunday

I think you may be right

First off, congrats to Stan he played an awesome match. Rafa was clearly hampered by injury from 0-2 in the second set but prior to that Stan was beating him fair and square.

But where does it leave things vis-à-vis the total slam count?

Will Rafa catch Roger? Will he overtake him? Can Roger add one more? Will Rafa start to slow down or is this just a momentary blip?

Personally, I'd make it 40-60 against Rafa catching Fed. I think he may just fall short. I don't think Fed will win another (albeit a further W can't be ruled out). I think the the odds are more definitely against Rafa getting five more to reach 18, but then again if he wins the FO (which Im opmitimistic about his chances for) then the race will really be on!

What say you?
.

Updated the image to remove the dashed line indicating where Rafa would have been had he won today.

I think it is very close around now - somewhere around 50/50 and in my mind it is just about see-sawing between Rafa and Roger being the favorite to end up with more in the end.

Before the tournament I thought Rafa's chances were slightly below 50% but before the final I thought they were better than 50% given that I thought he was very very likely to win and I thought that would have been a big stepping stone for him.  Now, for me, it is again probably Fed with somewhat better than 50/50 chance.

As a Fed fan, I am not going to pretend that I am unhappy that Rafa lost (though I am also genuinely happy for Stan regardless, as I like him anyway), but Rafa is not out of this race by any means.  Future is difficult to predict, which makes sports more fun.

On one hand, Rafa could potentially lose to Nole at RG, then fail to win W and USO, start slowing down and end up stuck at 13.  Not likely, but not totally impossible.

On the other hand, he could embody the current trend for players playing their best into their early thirties or better, and could have multiple multislam seasons ahead of him and end up screaming past Federer's total before settling somewhere in the low to mid twenties.  Also unlikely, but also not totally out of the question.

Only time will tell.

If Nadal had someone else other than Federer in all those semi finals and finals he would have a lot less slams. Federer was too nice and weak against him.

The main event that caught me out with Nadal's slam count was the 2010 romp. But interestingly, since then he has won four majors out of 13 and to be fair, he is likely to slow down. On his record, he will need to win another two but probably three more titles at Roland Garros to beat Federer's record. 11 titles. I just cannot see it. I could see him beating Sampras but not Federer.

Lionel Hutz wrote:I just cannot see it. I could see him beating Sampras but not Federer.

I don't know.  He is at 13, and who is to say he cannot have another 4-5 great years?  Also, if Nole goes into a prolonged slump, or still better, fails to reach anywhere his previous heights yet again, Nadal could quite well shoot right past 17, and even build a cushion on top of that.

He has been playing quite well at all slams outside of Wimbledon the last few years; and even at Wimbledon you feel it is more freak accidents rather than anything systematic that prevents him from going deep.

Born Slippy wrote:I think what can be surely put to bed now is the idea, often raised on here, that Fed was in some sort of physical decline since the age of 26. I have to say I thought he was starting to decline from his peak last year but it appears that he was right and it was only the back.

I simply look at the increased rate of losses to people not called Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. On that basis he's been slipping for a long time.

It's ridiculous to suggest a decline began last year.

But the tour gets better BB, Federer couldn't keep up those 04-07 win rates. A lot of Federer's poor performances 09-13 were due to him not putting the heavy gym yards in (for whatever reason), he neglected the physical side and started to just rely on his talent. That's not enough in this day and age. Seems to me since he's cleared up the back and started working out properly again he's been a lot better. He may not have the explosive movement of his youth but he's a more rounded player in other ways...however, players have got a lot better around him too.

I can feel a thread coming on - "Fed's chronic back problems cost him 5 years of his career".
Maybe not

lydian wrote: He may not have the explosive movement of his youth but he's a more rounded player in other ways...however, players have got a lot better around him too.

Explosive movement is a pretty significant thing to lose though!

Federer has been lucky/good enough to for his decline to be pretty gradual. But to put his current incarnation anywhere near the level of his 04-07 self is crazy.

Pick the best peformance of his you can think of from the last couple of years, maybe W12 or RG11 SF and then compare it to something like AO07 v Roddick or Masters Cup 07 v Ferrer. It's a different player.

The only time he has come close was in London v Rafa in 2011.

I've got no interest in either boosting or knocking Federer's reputation but there's no way, at age 32, he's anywhere near his age 26 level.