Men's Tennis: Anyone think Nadal can catch Federer's all-time grand slam record?

[CDu]

Nadal has reached the semis of the French Open without losing a set. He'll avoid the #1 and #3 players in the world until the final, instead getting the #6 (Ferrer) in the semis. That's not a gimme by any means, but it means he has probably about an 80-90% chance of making the final.

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. If he wins the French again (he's the favorite to do so - he OWNS this surface), he'll only be 5 behind Federer in Grand Slams won. Yet nobody seems to be talking about Nadal chasing Federer.

What do you all think? Will he do it?

[snowdenscold]

Nadal has reached the semis of the French Open without losing a set. He'll avoid the #1 and #3 players in the world until the final, instead getting the #6 (Ferrer) in the semis. That's not a gimme by any means, but it means he has probably about an 80-90% chance of making the final.

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. If he wins the French again (he's the favorite to do so - he OWNS this surface), he'll only be 5 behind Federer in Grand Slams won. Yet nobody seems to be talking about Nadal chasing Federer.

What do you all think? Will he do it?

Couple variables at play here. First, you would need to address whether or not Federer will win anymore himself. Although he's had a bit of a dry spell, he is still consistently in the semi-finals of almost every major, and his quarter-final streak is still intact at astonishing 32 in a row! (IIRC). In addition, he's won two of the five Masters 1000 series events so far this year, as well as the 500-series in Dubai. So I think it's reasonable to believe he's got at least one more in him.

Now that might mean 7+ slams for Nadal to overtake Federer. Doable, but getting harder. And just as Nadal has been Federer's nemesis when it comes to grand slam titles, so has Djokovic been to Nadal. With the exception of the recent turnaround, Nole's just owned him in finals over the past year. Will that continue in the slams outside of Roland Garros? Although if Nadal can go out with 13 French Open titles, maybe it's a moot point =)

So, with all that said, I'll just take a stab in the dark and say he has a 25% chance to do it.

[Mal]

As soon as Rafa wins one more, there will be talk of him catching and/or passing Federer, I think.

If he does, I think it will be looked at with a bit of an asterisk unless he wins a few more on hard courts. Fair or not, you can be in the conversation about g.o.a.t. despite not being great on clay, but not so much if you're perceived as just a clay court specialist. Nadal's got his career slam, but I think he needs at least another U.S. or Wimbledon title if passing or catching Federer is to make him an equal in the eyes of history. If you get to 16 by winning 12 French Opens, you're far and away the greatest clay court player in history, but that detracts from the perception of your overall greatness. Rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.

I think he's got a tough row to hoe to reach 16, anyway. Unless and until he can beat the new and improved Djokovic in a hard court or grass final, at least, it's hard to pencil him in for more than 1 or maybe 2 more slams outside the French.

Off the topic somewhat, but man, Djokovic keeps getting hosed on the semifinal matchups. I realize Nadal's the defending champ, but Djokovic is the top seed, No. 1 in the world and holds all the other major titles right now. Why does he have to face Federer in the semi's, again? Not having the 1 seed slotted to face the 4 and the 2 play the 3 just isn't fair, in my opinion. Last season, Djokovic was clearly the top player in the world after the Australian, and still had to face Federer, if I'm not mistaken, in the semi's of each one of the slams. He's won three in a row and four of five, and now he's right back there, having to beat both the nos. 2 and 3 guys to win another. That seems wrong to me. Has Rafa ever beaten both Federer and Djokovich in the same slam?

[pfrduke]

Off the topic somewhat, but man, Djokovic keeps getting hosed on the semifinal matchups. I realize Nadal's the defending champ, but Djokovic is the top seed, No. 1 in the world and holds all the other major titles right now. Why does he have to face Federer in the semi's, again? Not having the 1 seed slotted to face the 4 and the 2 play the 3 just isn't fair, in my opinion. Last season, Djokovic was clearly the top player in the world after the Australian, and still had to face Federer, if I'm not mistaken, in the semi's of each one of the slams. He's won three in a row and four of five, and now he's right back there, having to beat both the nos. 2 and 3 guys to win another. That seems wrong to me. Has Rafa ever beaten both Federer and Djokovich in the same slam?

I don't follow tennis closely enough to know the answer to this, and this has always confused me as well. Why aren't the semis slated for 1/4 and 2/3 to be the matchup (and, similarly, why don't the quarters fall out nicely on 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5)?

[Bluedog]

I don't follow tennis closely enough to know the answer to this, and this has always confused me as well. Why aren't the semis slated for 1/4 and 2/3 to be the matchup (and, similarly, why don't the quarters fall out nicely on 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5)?

They flip a coin, so it's a 50/50 chance the one seed gets the three in his half. Djokovic has just been unlucky historically. Same thing goes for the other matchups. Going back to the main topic, I think there's a very low chance Rafa catches Federer. He has a long way to go. If anything, Djokovic almost seems betterpositioned based on his recent dominance on two surfaces which encompass three out of the four grand slams. Although I realize he's not even close to Fed yet but Djokovic is still quite young. I don't think either will match it though.

[snowdenscold]

Fair or not, you can be in the conversation about g.o.a.t. despite not being great on clay, but not so much if you're perceived as just a clay court specialist.

Not sure if the first half is a Federer reference or not, but in either case, it's interesting to note how the dominance of Nadal has made Fed seem a less great clay court player than he is. I mean, in the past 7 years the guy has made 7 quarters, 6 semis, 5 finals, and 1 championship. Plus at least the semis this year. Perception is relative, I guess.

If you get to 16 by winning 12 French Opens, you're far and away the greatest clay court player in history, but that detracts from the perception of your overall greatness. Rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree.

Last season, Djokovic was clearly the top player in the world after the Australian, and still had to face Federer, if I'm not mistaken, in the semi's of each one of the slams.

I think last year played out according to seed at the F.O. and Wimbledon. Nadal didn't lose his #1 to Djokovic until after Wimbledon, so Novak/Fed as the 2/3 matchup in the semis played out accordingly in both cases.

[CDu]

Not sure if the first half is a Federer reference or not, but in either case, it's interesting to note how the dominance of Nadal has made Fed seem a less great clay court player than he is. I mean, in the past 7 years the guy has made 7 quarters, 6 semis, 5 finals, and 1 championship. Plus at least the semis this year. Perception is relative, I guess.

This same argument can be used to show that Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist, though. He's won 2 Wimbledons and was the runner-up 3 more times there. And he has a runner-up and a title at both the US and Australian Opens. He also has two more appearances in the semis at the US Open and another appearance in the semis in Australia. Nadal is unquestionably the greatest clay court player ever. But he's not merely a clay court specialist.

That being said, I wasn't asking if Nadal is the greatest ever. I was merely asking if he could catch Federer's Slam record. I agree that it won't be easy. But if he wins the French, I think he has a reasonable chance (maybe 1 in 3) of pulling it off.

[Mal]

This same argument can be used to show that Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist, though. He's won 2 Wimbledons and was the runner-up 3 more times there. And he has a runner-up and a title at both the US and Australian Opens. He also has two more appearances in the semis at the US Open and another appearance in the semis in Australia. Nadal is unquestionably the greatest clay court player ever. But he's not merely a clay court specialist.

Good point, in response to a good point by snowden. One difference, however, is that I don't think Nadal's been stopped by Federer and Federer alone on hard courts quite the same way that Federer, while establishing himself as the second best clay court player for awhile, and making four out of six French Open finals, including last year, just could (can) not for the life of him figure out a way to beat Rafa in any country that has a Mediterranean coast. Other than Robin Soderling, if I'm not mistaken, no one outside of Nadal has beaten Federer in Paris since 2004. Nadal's been held back at times by Murray, Ferrer, del Potro, and others on his way to the top of the heap on other surfaces. To his credit, however, he figured out how to beat Roger at Wimbledon before Roger figured out how to beat him at Roland Garros.

Things have changed somewhat, in that Nadal's now consistently reaching at least the semi's at the other three slams, so long as his health is good. And, of course, everything's a little different now that Djokovic has joined the two of them and become, to date at least, Nadal's kryptonite in hard court slam finals.

[CDu]

Well, it turned out to be a fairly interesting final. Early on, Nadal dominated, winning the first two sets. But as the weather worsened, Nadal's clay court advantage disappeared. The rain made the balls heavier (less topspin) and the court slicker (harder to slide into your shots with confidence). That played to the advantage of Djokovic (who hits bigger groundstrokes). Djokovic reeled off 8 straight games against Nadal (an unheard of number) before the officials finally stopped play with Nadal down a break early in the 4th. When play resumed this morning, Nadal won 6 of the next 9 games to win the match.

He's now the unquestioned greatest men's clay court player ever (he's lost only once in the French, and that was again on a rainy day). Had the weather not been bad yesterday, he probably wins in straight sets.

The chase for the most grand slams in men's history is on. Nadal is behind by 5, with 5 years of youth on his side. He's probably going to have to play better on the hardcourts to pull it off. But with Djokovic surging on grass and hard courts and guys like Del Potro and Tsonga on the rise, it's very possible that the 31 year old Federer is done winning majors. Should be an interesting next few years.

[littlejohn]

Well, it turned out to be a fairly interesting final. Early on, Nadal dominated, winning the first two sets. But as the weather worsened, Nadal's clay court advantage disappeared. The rain made the balls heavier (less topspin) and the court slicker (harder to slide into your shots with confidence). That played to the advantage of Djokovic (who hits bigger groundstrokes). Djokovic reeled off 8 straight games against Nadal (an unheard of number) before the officials finally stopped play with Nadal down a break early in the 4th. When play resumed this morning, Nadal won 6 of the next 9 games to win the match.

He's now the unquestioned greatest men's clay court player ever (he's lost only once in the French, and that was again on a rainy day). Had the weather not been bad yesterday, he probably wins in straight sets.

The chase for the most grand slams in men's history is on. Nadal is behind by 5, with 5 years of youth on his side. He's probably going to have to play better on the hardcourts to pull it off. But with Djokovic surging on grass and hard courts and guys like Del Potro and Tsonga on the rise, it's very possible that the 31 year old Federer is done winning majors. Should be an interesting next few years.

However, you also have to consider Nadal's physical problems, especially with the way he plays. He could easily blow out a knee, and never win another match.

[CDu]

However, you also have to consider Nadal's physical problems, especially with the way he plays. He could easily blow out a knee, and never win another match.

No doubt. He's got a lot of work to do to catch Federer. I think the odds are still very much against him. But I think 1-in-4 or 1-in-3 chance isn't an unreasonable estimate.

I think the "blow out a knee and never win another match" is a highly unlikely scenario. Science has advanced to the point where athletes can recover to be just as strong as before their injury. Such an injury would cost him a year, but certainly wouldn't keep him from winning matches (if not Grand Slams).

But the wear and tear (especially on the hard courts) is definitely an area of concern, as is the recent dominance of Djokovic and the fact that winning 5 Grand Slams is pretty tough to do.

[Mal]

I think last year played out according to seed at the F.O. and Wimbledon. Nadal didn't lose his #1 to Djokovic until after Wimbledon, so Novak/Fed as the 2/3 matchup in the semis played out accordingly in both cases.

I think it's interesting that this has now come into play yet again. Djokovic as the top seed at Wimbledon gets to once again face the prospect of having to beat both Nadal and Federer, the 2 and 3 seeds, to retain his title. I don't think he's made any noise about this, but it strikes me as grossly unfair at this point that the coin flipping on this keeps working out so as to not give him the boost a No. 1 seed would expect. And it turns out that when he was stuck at 3 behind Roger and Rafa, he kept getting dropped in Roger's half, too, making it harder to just break through to the finals by beating a more evenly-matched Nadal instead of the guy winning 16 Slams. Since taking over the top ranking, Djokovic has now had Federer as the third seed fall in his half of the draw three out of four times at the Slams. The one time it didn't happen Federer may have done enough to tire out Rafa that it helped him survive that marathon in this year's Aussie final.

Out of curiosity, since I'd asked before and since I think it takes a touch of the sheen off of Nadal's hardcourt titles, I went to see whether Rafa had ever beaten the two top seeds (other than himself, of course) to win a hardcourt Slam. I didn't bother to look at the French, since it doesn't matter who he plays there unless that person's temporarily turned into a superhuman with Bjorn Borg tennis skills. Turns out he's not beaten two high seeds consecutively in the Aussie, Wimbledon or U.S. In both 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon, Federer got the unlucky bounce in the draw that Djokovich's now getting, being the top seed and having the 3 (Novak both times) in his half of the bracket. In 2008 it didn't matter, as Roger and Rafa both faced unseeded surprises in the semi's. In 2010 it may have made a difference, depending on how much it took out of Tomas Berdych to upset both Fed and Djokovic in the quarters and semi's. At the 2009 U.S. Open, Nadal earned the top seed and benefitted by watching Federer and Djokovich fight through a grueling 5-setter before the winner faced him. And at the '09 Aussie, the seeds again went according to number so Nadal got the benefit of his top spot and got 14 Verdasco in the semi's. It's not that often that the results go according to seed and the top 4 make the semi's, of course, so grains of salt, etc. But the pattern is rather surprising - when Nadal's the top seed, the seeds consistently fall into predictable 1/4 and 2/3 order. When he's the 2 seed, they keep going 1/3 and 2/4.

I don't quite see this the same way that I inevitably think a little less of Federer's one French Open title, since it didn't involve personally beating Nadal. But it strikes me as pretty fortunate for Nadal that there have been far more times than math would predict that, regardless of what his seed is, he's seen a path to a hardcourt Slam title that can't possibly include having to beat both of the two best hardcourt players of the last decade. We'll see what impact the draw has on Wimbledon, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if you see the winner of another Djokovich/Federer slugfest facing the daunting prospect of playing the Energizer Bunny himself in the finals after he's whipped Murray or some other lesser player again. I don't think Federer's got it left in him to beat them both in the same tournament. Should Djokovic beat them both again, it'd be pretty impressive, and twice in the last four Slams.

I'm hoping for a Tsonga/Nadal quarters matchup, as that could make for a fascinating match. Tsonga's one of the few guys with the tools to present a stylistic danger for Nadal, but he'd need to make the tactical decision to put his chips on a full-on serve and volley attack. If he just stays back and tries to baseline it, he'd be out in two hours, of course, but with his big serve, size and coverage, if he decided to play at the net it could force Nadal out of his usual position well behind the baseline and/or neutralize his inhuman ability to get to everything hit his way.

[CDu]

I think it's interesting that this has now come into play yet again. Djokovic as the top seed at Wimbledon gets to once again face the prospect of having to beat both Nadal and Federer, the 2 and 3 seeds, to retain his title. I don't think he's made any noise about this, but it strikes me as grossly unfair at this point that the coin flipping on this keeps working out so as to not give him the boost a No. 1 seed would expect. And it turns out that when he was stuck at 3 behind Roger and Rafa, he kept getting dropped in Roger's half, too, making it harder to just break through to the finals by beating a more evenly-matched Nadal instead of the guy winning 16 Slams. Since taking over the top ranking, Djokovic has now had Federer as the third seed fall in his half of the draw three out of four times at the Slams. The one time it didn't happen Federer may have done enough to tire out Rafa that it helped him survive that marathon in this year's Aussie final.

Out of curiosity, since I'd asked before and since I think it takes a touch of the sheen off of Nadal's hardcourt titles, I went to see whether Rafa had ever beaten the two top seeds (other than himself, of course) to win a hardcourt Slam. I didn't bother to look at the French, since it doesn't matter who he plays there unless that person's temporarily turned into a superhuman with Bjorn Borg tennis skills. Turns out he's not beaten two high seeds consecutively in the Aussie, Wimbledon or U.S. In both 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon, Federer got the unlucky bounce in the draw that Djokovich's now getting, being the top seed and having the 3 (Novak both times) in his half of the bracket. In 2008 it didn't matter, as Roger and Rafa both faced unseeded surprises in the semi's. In 2010 it may have made a difference, depending on how much it took out of Tomas Berdych to upset both Fed and Djokovic in the quarters and semi's. At the 2009 U.S. Open, Nadal earned the top seed and benefitted by watching Federer and Djokovich fight through a grueling 5-setter before the winner faced him. And at the '09 Aussie, the seeds again went according to number so Nadal got the benefit of his top spot and got 14 Verdasco in the semi's. It's not that often that the results go according to seed and the top 4 make the semi's, of course, so grains of salt, etc. But the pattern is rather surprising - when Nadal's the top seed, the seeds consistently fall into predictable 1/4 and 2/3 order. When he's the 2 seed, they keep going 1/3 and 2/4.

I don't quite see this the same way that I inevitably think a little less of Federer's one French Open title, since it didn't involve personally beating Nadal. But it strikes me as pretty fortunate for Nadal that there have been far more times than math would predict that, regardless of what his seed is, he's seen a path to a hardcourt Slam title that can't possibly include having to beat both of the two best hardcourt players of the last decade. We'll see what impact the draw has on Wimbledon, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if you see the winner of another Djokovich/Federer slugfest facing the daunting prospect of playing the Energizer Bunny himself in the finals after he's whipped Murray or some other lesser player again. I don't think Federer's got it left in him to beat them both in the same tournament. Should Djokovic beat them both again, it'd be pretty impressive, and twice in the last four Slams.

I'm hoping for a Tsonga/Nadal quarters matchup, as that could make for a fascinating match. Tsonga's one of the few guys with the tools to present a stylistic danger for Nadal, but he'd need to make the tactical decision to put his chips on a full-on serve and volley attack. If he just stays back and tries to baseline it, he'd be out in two hours, of course, but with his big serve, size and coverage, if he decided to play at the net it could force Nadal out of his usual position well behind the baseline and/or neutralize his inhuman ability to get to everything hit his way.

Nadal has certainly gotten some good fortune along the way. Sometimes it is just as important to be lucky as it is to be good, and better to be both.

I think there's only one player on tour who can beat Nadal in a baseline game (except on clay of course - then there's nobody that can beat Nadal except injury and the weather) and that is Djokovic. You're right though - with Tsonga's athleticism and power he could make for an interesting matchup with Nadal. It's probably Nadal's only true hurdle unless Murray plays out of his mind (or Nadal suffers an injury) before the final.

I'd love to see Djokovic and Federer in the semis. Two fantastic players on Federer's best surface (negating just a bit of Djokovic's current overall edge). Should be fun if it happens.

[pfrduke]

Well, Nadal won't add another one yet. A second round loss to Lukas Rosol. Ouch.

[Mal]

Well, Nadal won't add another one yet. A second round loss to Lukas Rosol. Ouch.

Wow. That was shocking. I haven't seen it, but early reports are that Rosol played out of his freaking mind, especially in the fifth set, and was crushing returns for winners all over the place and aced Nadal half a dozen times in his last two service games to close him out. Remarkable. Ranked 100 (for the moment, at least), so I'm sure this is the lowest ranked player to ever beat Rafa at a Major.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Wow. That was shocking. I haven't seen it, but early reports are that Rosol played out of his freaking mind, especially in the fifth set, and was crushing returns for winners all over the place and aced Nadal half a dozen times in his last two service games to close him out. Remarkable. Ranked 100 (for the moment, at least), so I'm sure this is the lowest ranked player to ever beat Rafa at a Major.

I watched that last set. WOW! I wonder what kind of deal Rosol made with the devil to play like that?

[snowdenscold]

I also watched the last set (thankfully I had left ESPN 3 playing on my computer throughout the day while I was gone - so when I walked back in my room I saw it was in the 5th, otherwise I would have missed it).

Rosol had some unbelievable service games - especially the last 2. He must have had like 5 or 6 aces and 2 or 3 winners in those games - both love games against Nadal! (I think I read he only swung the racket 10 times in those eight points). He was also hitting 100 mph returns from the baselines (!).

I don't know where this guy came from (he's 26 so I assume he didn't first pick up a racket when he was 23), but I think this was only his 2nd tournament-level grass court win (the first being 2 days ago). Just unbelievable. It'll be interesting to see whether he can keep this up, or will suffer a big letdown on Saturday.

It's sort of fun and exciting to watch an upset like this, but then again, it's also been amazing to have the big 4 consistently make the semi-finals together (or at least the quarters). I suppose this match is an impurity on the 'golden' age of men's tennis.

Also, I suppose Andy Murray's fairly happy tonight =)

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Et tu, Roger? No sir, not today! Thank you very much!

[snowdenscold]

Man, that was intense! I had to walk away at times because I, the random fan on another continent, couldn't take the pressure. Hopefully that's the last scare like that we see until the semis.

[NSDukeFan]

Couple variables at play here. First, you would need to address whether or not Federer will win anymore himself. Although he's had a bit of a dry spell, he is still consistently in the semi-finals of almost every major, and his quarter-final streak is still intact at astonishing 32 in a row! (IIRC). In addition, he's won two of the five Masters 1000 series events so far this year, as well as the 500-series in Dubai. So I think it's reasonable to believe he's got at least one more in him.

Now that might mean 7+ slams for Nadal to overtake Federer. Doable, but getting harder. And just as Nadal has been Federer's nemesis when it comes to grand slam titles, so has Djokovic been to Nadal. With the exception of the recent turnaround, Nole's just owned him in finals over the past year. Will that continue in the slams outside of Roland Garros? Although if Nadal can go out with 13 French Open titles, maybe it's a moot point =)

So, with all that said, I'll just take a stab in the dark and say he has a 25% chance to do it.

Now 33. That is a record that I can't see anyone reaching anytime in the not too distant future. Over 8 consecutive years of making every grand slam quarter! Ridiculous consistency!