Tennis...Anyone?

[Drew S.]

I have a feeling Nadal will hang around until he can no longer compete at the French Open. He has only lost 2 matches at Roland Garros, and didn't drop a set in 2017. Obviously, a time will come when he just doesn't have it (or, as you mentioned, injuries finally take their toll), but Nadal is only 31. I wouldn't be surprised if Rafa plays another 5-6 years, wins another 3-4 French Opens, and maybe snags another major or 2 to eclipse Roger's 19.

A lot of that probably depends on Shapovalov and Zverev. If they start dominating it will be tough for Rafa. It's very impressive he has hung on as long as he has given all his injuries. I wonder if there is any significance to his Uncle Toni stepping down from coaching him?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

A lot of that probably depends on Shapovalov and Zverev. If they start dominating it will be tough for Rafa. It's very impressive he has hung on as long as he has given all his injuries. I wonder if there is any significance to his Uncle Toni stepping down from coaching him?

I'm not sure on Uncle Toni, but Shapovalov and Zverev have a long way to go on the clay to challenge Nadal. Barring injury (which as we've both noted, is a big concern for Nadal), I would imagine that Nadal wins at least 1-2 more French Opens.

If Nadal gets to 19 (assuming that ties Federer), it will be very interesting to see how people view the comparison between Nadal and Federer.

 

[Drew S.]

I'm not sure on Uncle Toni, but Shapovalov and Zverev have a long way to go on the clay to challenge Nadal. Barring injury (which as we've both noted, is a big concern for Nadal), I would imagine that Nadal wins at least 1-2 more French Opens.

If Nadal gets to 19 (assuming that ties Federer), it will be very interesting to see how people view the comparison between Nadal and Federer.

Well Zverev won a Masters 1000 event on clay this year, so he must be somewhat decent on it.

I've got a couple questions on Uncle Toni stepping down. Is it a sign he doesn't think Rafa has much left and what is the effect on Rafa? It will be interesting to see what happen without him.

I don't think there is any question Rafa is the greatest clay court player ever. Fed has him by quite a distance overall though. Nadal would need to win four or five more outside Paris for it to be any sort of argument.

 

[SonofSouthie]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

I'm not sure on Uncle Toni, but Shapovalov and Zverev have a long way to go on the clay to challenge Nadal. Barring injury (which as we've both noted, is a big concern for Nadal), I would imagine that Nadal wins at least 1-2 more French Opens.

If Nadal gets to 19 (assuming that ties Federer), it will be very interesting to see how people view the comparison between Nadal and Federer.

A comparison I found kinda surprising was Nadal leads head-to-head matchups 23-14.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Well Zverev won a Masters 1000 event on clay this year, so he must be somewhat decent on it.

Decent for sure...but, as I said, he has a long way to go to challenge Rafa on clay. Zverev's certainly on an upward trajectory, so that gap may close sooner than I may think. However, as it stands, Rafa really doesn't have much of a challenger at Roland Garros.

I don't think there is any question Rafa is the greatest clay court player ever. Fed has him by quite a distance overall though. Nadal would need to win four or five more outside Paris for it to be any sort of argument.

I'm not so sure about that. Rafa has a 6-3 heads up record against Federer in finals (including wins on each surface). Nadal is 9-3 against Roger in Grand Slams, and leads the overall series 23-14. If Rafa gets another Australia Open, he would have won the Grand Slam twice. Rafa has a better winning percentage in Grand Slams than Federer as well. It's really an interesting comparison, and I don't think there is really a wrong answer either way.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

A comparison I found kinda surprising was Nadal leads head-to-head matchups 23-14.

Exactly. Not only that, but they are almost even outside of clay (Roger leads 12-10 overall). As I said, it's a very interesting comparison, and if Nadal can go on to match Roger in Grand Slams, he could very well be viewed historically as the superior player.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

I'm not so sure about that. Rafa has a 6-3 heads up record against Federer in finals (including wins on each surface). Nadal is 9-3 against Roger in Grand Slams, and leads the overall series 23-14. If Rafa gets another Australia Open, he would have won the Grand Slam twice. Rafa has a better winning percentage in Grand Slams than Federer as well. It's really an interesting comparison, and I don't think there is really a wrong answer either way.

I'm not a huge fan of the head-to-head comparison for a couple reasons. First, there's a fairly significant five-year age gap. Nadal was playing Federer at Rafa's peak more than Fed was playing Nadal at Roger's peak. Second, there are a lot of years in there where Federer was making quarters/semis in majors and Nadal didn't even play in the tournament, which has to count for something(or a lot, in my opinion). Especially if some day we get further confirmation on the persistent rumors that some of those "injuries" were really double-secret probations.

Rafa at his most roided out maybe was the most dominant player, but in terms of the best career, it's Federer by a long shot.

 

[Drew S.]

I'm not a huge fan of the head-to-head comparison for a couple reasons. First, there's a fairly significant five-year age gap. Nadal was playing Federer at Rafa's peak more than Fed was playing Nadal at Roger's peak. Second, there are a lot of years in there where Federer was making quarters/semis in majors and Nadal didn't even play in the tournament, which has to count for something(or a lot, in my opinion). Especially if some day we get further confirmation on the persistent rumors that some of those "injuries" were really double-secret probations.

Rafa at his most roided out maybe was the most dominant player, but in terms of the best career, it's Federer by a long shot.

I was going to post same thing on age difference. Another thing to point out is that Djoker actually leads Nadal 26-24.

Are there any sort of legitimate rumors out there? I've always suspected it personally, but had never read much from anyone else. They're likely all doing something.

The most amazing part about Fed is his consistency. At one point he made like 30 straight semis. To have that level of consistency is crazy.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Another thing to point out is that Djoker actually leads Nadal 26-24.

FWIW, Djoker is 3-4 against Nadal in Grand Slam finals...he's 3-1 against Federer. Djoker also leads the overall matchup with Federer 23-22 (and 9-6 in Grand Slams).

As for the age difference, that definitely is key. Roger was winning a bunch of slams in his prime without having to face generational greats in their primes. Roger won 10 of his 19 slams before Rafa or Djoker turned 21.

 

[Drew S.]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

FWIW, Djoker is 3-4 against Nadal in Grand Slam finals...he's 3-1 against Federer. Djoker also leads the overall matchup with Federer 23-22 (and 9-6 in Grand Slams).

As for the age difference, that definitely is key. Roger was winning a bunch of slams in his prime without having to face generational greats in their primes. Roger won 10 of his 19 slams before Rafa or Djoker turned 21.

I think you and many others underrate Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick. You can only have so many generational greats at one time too.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

I think you and many others underrate Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick. You can only have so many generational greats at one time too.

Certainly. That is what makes Nadal's 15 grand slams so impressive. He's done it while there have been 1-2 generational greats playing at the same time.

 

[MissThundercat]

Sloane Stephens won easily today.

 

[Drew S.]

Sloane Stephens won easily today.

I am so, so, so happy for her! She genuinely seems lovely. For awhile it seemed like she didn't really have the passion for the game you need to compete at the highest level, but she has been great this summer coming back from injury. I feel for Keys that she was injured and wasn't able to give her best. It was always going to be tough for her after her incredible performance Thursday.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Certainly. That is what makes Nadal's 15 grand slams so impressive. He's done it while there have been 1-2 generational greats playing at the same time.

Sampras had stiffer competition imho.

 

[Drew S.]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Sampras had stiffer competition imho.

I'd strongly disagree with this. The guys outside the top 5 are much stronger than they were in sampras' day. All the players take every facet of their game so much more serious now too. If you like at the last 10 years there hasn't been one surprising grand slam winner.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

I'd strongly disagree with this. The guys outside the top 5 are much stronger than they were in sampras' day. All the players take every facet of their game so much more serious now too. If you like at the last 10 years there hasn't been one surprising grand slam winner.

I tend to agree with this, but I would point out that there were more specialists for the majority of Sampras' career, and the courts (particularly at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows) favored those specialists. For example, Goran Ivanisevic was a great serve-and-volley player who could dominate at the fastest surface (Wimbledon, where he appeared in all 4 of his career Grand Slam finals and won his only Grand Slam (2001)). He was outside the Top 5 for much of his career, but might be one of the best 10-15 players to ever play on the grass.

Of course, if Sampras had to play on the slower Wimbledon of today, he likely would not have won 7 titles there. The same could be said of Federer...if he had to play on the fast Wimbledon courts of Sampras' era, he likely does not win 8 titles there.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less. What a putrid argument, but reminds me why I have him on ignore.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less.

Thank you. I had an "Is this Opposite Day?" moment and thought I was stroking out.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Tennis...Anyone?

Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less. What a putrid argument, but reminds me why I have him on ignore.

Again, the reason why more "randoms" won back in Sampras' era had more to do with the number of specialists and the playing surfaces at the grand slams. Now, I believe that is certainly a factor weighing in favor of your argument. However, there are more "generational greats" playing in their primes than Sampras really ever had to contend with (Agassi is the only one I can think of at the moment (and he was extremely inconsistent)...anyone else?). Ultimately, it really is a different game today than it was just 15-20 years ago.

 

[Drew S.]

Um, that fewer randoms have won during this era is proof the competition was more difficult then not less. What a putrid argument, but reminds me why I have him on ignore.

I guess you might not see this or whatever, but look at the Australian open this year. I'm not saying the random guys are going to win the tourney, definitely not, but they make the first few rounds much tougher than they used to be for the guys who are in contention.