Weeks 35 & 36: US Open, New York (hard)

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Weeks 35 & 36: US Open, New York (hard)

LordBrownof · Futures level

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Interesting typo there Indiana or maybe it wasn't meant to be. If you sit down and look at who wins the tournaments as I did before posting there is a clear pattern emerges as to how ranking points are accrued. It's a rough guide as well and I'd say fairly accurate to say you can make top 50 without doing much at ATP Level.

Jaggy - I think Indy's issue is your use of "widely accepted". What you actually meant was "in my opinion" or "by my own definition".

theemptyvessel · Club Coach

Vandenburg wrote:
Remember both Taro Daniel and Mayer made serious inroads into Nadal's serve. Anderson's level of play was the worst i've seen in a slam final this century.

Not got a long memory Vandy? Gaston Gaudio and Albert Costa for a start were both significantly worse players than Anderson and they actually won their GS finals. We have had such a banquet of amazing tennis in the last decade that we tend to forget how dire things were at the start of this century, the French Open in particular was almost unwatchable for a few years.

So far as Nadal and his serve and level of play are concerned, not sure which commentators you were listening to but most I heard agreed that in the last couple of rounds he had found a new level and yesterday was as well as he has played on hard courts since his early twenties, everything about his game clicked.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Vandenburg wrote:
Sheddie wrote:
Yeah Rafa's a challenger level player really. Crazy that he even managed to make it this far
Not sure you really understand what i've said, instead you've picked out keywords. Rafa's serve is widely acknowledged as being the weakest part of his game, and is distinctly average. to manage to get only 15 points on it over 3 sets, and only make him face deuce once, is shocking.
every commentator, was bewilded by this, the stats make Nadal to be Sampras serve!
Remember both Taro Daniel and Mayer made serious inroads into Nadal's serve. Anderson's level of play was the worst i've seen in a slam final this century.

'widely acknowledged' ???

'every commentator' ???

A 'bold prediction' might be that this won't stand up to scientific scrutiny. smile

There's been several interesting articles this year (one in the New Yorker, of all places) about the improvement in Rafa's serve especially since Moya has been involved - mostly to do with the unpredictability of the placement and the comparative strength of the second serve.

JonH · All-time great

Whilst very tempted to enter the Challenger debate, I wont at this stage! I think I did a similar analysis to the one above once on Challenger and ATP levels, Futures etc by ranking. Slightly different but similar

I wanted to raise the issue of what some people call the GOAT and , with less hyperbole, which of Federer or Nadal will end up with the most slams - I am counting Novak out of this for now, given his absence from the game and being behind the other two. On the Radio 5 commentary last night, Jeff Tarango commented that he thought that Rafa would end up with more slams than Federer. Fed has 19 now, Rafa 16. Tarango's logic was:

Fed has 19, probably one more realistic season to win more slams ie 2018, he might win one next season most likely not two - so will probably end up on 20 tops.

Rafa has won 16. He is 4 years behind Roger. The way he played this week, we should count out him winning another 4 slams at least and probably more - 4 FO's plus a US or Aussie for example? or some other combo. But in essence, he has enough years left to get beyond Federer by one or two.

A lot of folks would also say that Fed had an easier start to his slam winning years , less competition, Rafa won more with Fed, Djoko and Andy as opposition. And Rafa still has the H2H in his favour. Personally, I am neither a Fed or Rafa fan, I respect and like both (more than Novak to be frank) a lot but not a fan. But on that analysis, IF Rafa does surpass Roger then it is reasonable to say he could quite rightly be called the GOAT.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Interesting topic Jon but I would say as Rafa has 10 Slams at the French he'd need to go well into the 20s to make Goat criteria for me. I know Roger has only 1 French but clay is the weaker surface let's call it the 'Challenger' surface as an analogy. Rafa is the GOAT on clay no doubt about that but grass and hard courts would meet my criteria to decide the GOAT. So it's Roger for me unless Rafa can win more hard court and grass Slams. Rafa won this years US by default, not his own fault I might add.

It probably only fair to judge Rafa or Roger when they have both finished given the age gap as well.

indiana · Tennis legend

Why does the much more minority surface of grass, which I'd say many fewer players are competitive on, get such a nod over clay as an indicator of the better player? Why would it be the weaker surface?

Genuinely interested in hearing some reasoned arguments.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

I'd say that out of the 4 Slams the French probably ranks as the lowest. Majority of Rafas titles are on clay. His moonballing style suits the surface. Personally I believe there is more skill and finesse on hard and grass and Roger would have won more titles on clay had it not been for Rafa, whereas I don't necessarily think that would have been the case the other way round. You could also factor in the nationality to surface type. Spanish and South Americans favour the clay therefore tend to play more on it and get better results on it. If you look at the winners of the French pre Rafa you ll find a lot of players you didn't really excel elsewhere. There are probably other reasons as well, I ll get back to you with more of you think that's limited.

JonH · All-time great

I agree with judging when they are finished although it makes an interesting what if question/ discussion. In terms of slams ans relative strength. I've always rated Wimbledon top based on prestige and skill required, but I rate us and French equal second with Oz open a way back. I'm sure there is a separate thread showing Oz open finalists are often more obscure rankings wise. Take out the Oz open and fed drops a way back behind rafa and Novak also falls back

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

I disagree about the Oz Open. Historically yes in the days when travel was more expensive and problematic. However it's probably the best run and most enjoyable of the Slams. The last 10 finals I believe have been contested by only the big 5, which actually makes it the strongest and only Slam to claim this. Only the best players go deep in the Oz Open so it's above the French for me.

JonH · All-time great

I suppose that is the thing, it is all so subjective. I'd argue Federer is no way the best ever on grass, in part because the guys he has beaten often can't play proper grass court tennis. Samples, McEnroe, Becker at his best, Borg probably at his best, laver certainly and others like Rosewall, newcombe etc might well and probably would have beaten Federer. But that's just an opinion and impossible to prove. All we can really go by is a) who wins most slams / big events / ranked number one and b) all slams rank equal and even then we can debate. So it's back to the stsrt- if Nadal wins more slams will he be to GOAT?!

theemptyvessel · Club Coach

Interesting topic indeed but I would argue that Rafa won't overhaul Fed without a large slice of luck. The 4 or 5 more years to win slams is based on him playing and being as competitive as Fed well into his thirties which I find doubtful, his style of play is much more physical and he was breaking down quite badly just a couple of years ago. Rafa has come back rejuvenated from his break but the grind of the tour would probably slow him down within the next 12 months unless he is very careful with his scheduling and frankly cuts out a lot of the mickey mouse clay tournaments.

The return of Novak, Stan and hopefully Andy next year will further muddy the waters and there is no denying that the current next gen crowd are looking the most likely to break through on the biggest stages with Zverev in particular looking like very much the real thing and Shapovalov not far behind.

indiana · Tennis legend

JonH wrote:
I suppose that is the thing, it is all so subjective. I'd argue Federer is no way the best ever on grass, in part because the guys he has beaten often can't play proper grass court tennis. Samples, McEnroe, Becker at his best, Borg probably at his best, laver certainly and others like Rosewall, newcombe etc might well and probably would have beaten Federer. But that's just an opinion and impossible to prove. All we can really go by is a) who wins most slams / big events / ranked number one and b) all slams rank equal and even then we can debate. So it's back to the stsrt- if Nadal wins more slams will he be to GOAT?!

My general thoughts would be all Slams rank fairly equally in terms of deciding a great. Or at least as Jon says folk have varying subjective opinions ( some by the best will at least trying to be / maybe even being objective, but reaching different conclusions ) of the ordering that it is very difficult and potentially unfair to 'handicap' a player by say saying Nadal should have to get fairly well into the twenties in Slam titles to truly rank ahead of Fed.

The possible most fair and even surfaces for the field, the hard court ones, suffer a bit from timing at the beginning and late in the season, The French is probably the most ideally placed for having players ready and in form though the extra week in between nowadays helps Wimbledon. And yes, Wimbledon may have the most prestige, but does that edge it significantly when a whole lot of players would like to win just any Slam and are generally giving of their all in all Slams?

You will get occasional freak understrength fields like this latest US Open, you can get good draws at any of them, but they all have over 100 of the best players on the planet trying very hard to win that two weeks, the main difference being the surface. And I am still unconvinced that the French clay is down the scale, particukarly in comoarison to grass. Rafa has won a lot of French Opens, Fed has won a lot of Wimbledons and the theory that Fed might have won quite a few more French Opens without Nadal but not so much vice versa I am unconvinced of to any significant extent and am not actually sure what that proves anyway if generally regarded as so. One thing we do know is that Nadal has won more Wimbledons than Fed has French Opens, if just 2-1, for whatever that shows.

The H2H is heavily 23-14 to Nadal. And while that is more than covered by clay 13-2, the lead to Fed in H2H is tight elsewhere at 9-10 on hard and 1-2 on grass, H2H can be largely a matter of how styles work against each other but with so many matches between the two players we are comparing I'd say even with it largely a clay lead that edges to Nadal. I am not having by the way that Fed wins 2-1 by surface so that counts more than the clay lead. However, it being so clay weighted makes it in true terms not nearly as significant as 23-14 might suggest,

How strong or weak certain eras have been ( and Fed is the one that competed against an initially bit different era ) and the average strength of final opponents or indeed last few round opponents and general latter stage players is something I'd prefer to look myself at in the large rather than be too swayed for now by selected statistics, while taking them on board.

But as things stand with me for now the biggee is Slam titles and I do not feel any of them should be significantly less regarded by surface or prestige in helping show the greater player. Whether folk think Nadal will reach the Fed total is certainly up in the air and I would agree that it is difficult to see him continuing as long at such a level as Fed has. But he is good for now and not too far away. Of course if he does eventually at least match Fed's final total I am sure the GOAT arguments will be loud and long.

JonH · All-time great

indiana wrote:
JonH wrote:
I suppose that is the thing, it is all so subjective. I'd argue Federer is no way the best ever on grass, in part because the guys he has beaten often can't play proper grass court tennis. Samples, McEnroe, Becker at his best, Borg probably at his best, laver certainly and others like Rosewall, newcombe etc might well and probably would have beaten Federer. But that's just an opinion and impossible to prove. All we can really go by is a) who wins most slams / big events / ranked number one and b) all slams rank equal and even then we can debate. So it's back to the stsrt- if Nadal wins more slams will he be to GOAT?!

My general thoughts would be all Slams rank fairly equally in terms of deciding a great. Or at least as Jon says folk have varying subjective opinions ( some by the best will at least trying to be / maybe even being objective, but reaching different conclusions ) of the ordering that it is very difficult and potentially unfair to 'handicap' a player by say saying Nadal should have to get fairly well into the twenties in Slam titles to truly rank ahead of Fed.
The possible most fair and even surfaces for the field, the hard court ones, suffer a bit from timing at the beginning and late in the season, The French is probably the most ideally placed for having players ready and in form though the extra week in between nowadays helps Wimbledon. And yes, Wimbledon may have the most prestige, but does that edge it significantly when a whole lot of players would like to win just any Slam and are generally giving of their all in all Slams?
You will get occasional freak understrength fields like this latest US Open, you can get good draws at any of them, but they all have over 100 of the best players on the planet trying very hard to win that two weeks, the main difference being the surface. And I am still unconvinced that the French clay is down the scale, particukarly in comoarison to grass. Rafa has won a lot of French Opens, Fed has won a lot of Wimbledons and the theory that Fed might have won quite a few more French Opens without Nadal but not so much vice versa I am unconvinced of to any significant extent and am not actually sure what that proves anyway if generally regarded as so. One thing we do know is that Nadal has won more Wimbledons than Fed has French Opens, if just 2-1, for whatever that shows.
The H2H is heavily 23-14 to Nadal. And while that is more than covered by clay 13-2, the lead to Fed in H2H is tight elsewhere at 9-10 on hard and 1-2 on grass, H2H can be largely a matter of how styles work against each other but with so many matches between the two players we are comparing I'd say even with it largely a clay lead that edges to Nadal. I am not having by the way that Fed wins 2-1 by surface so that counts more than the clay lead. However, it being so clay weighted makes it in true terms not nearly as significant as 23-14 might suggest,
How strong or weak certain eras have been ( and Fed is the one that competed against an initially bit different era ) and the average strength of final opponents or indeed last few round opponents and general latter stage players is something I'd prefer to look myself at in the large rather than be too swayed for now by selected statistics, while taking them on board.
But as things stand with me for now the biggee is Slam titles and I do not feel any of them should be significantly less regarded by surface or prestige in helping show the greater player. Whether folk think Nadal will reach the Fed total is certainly up in the air and I would agree that it is difficult to see him continuing as long at such a level as Fed has. But he is good for now and not too far away. Of course if he does eventually at least match Fed's final total I am sure the GOAT arguments will be loud and long.

Well summarised, Indy. Two things to add and to give a different voice to what I started with - Pat Cash today on the BBC website says that he reckons Fed will be the one to beat in 2018 and suggests he can possibly win 3 slams (all but the French) with Rafa winning one. IF that happened, all bets could well be off and it certainly raises a different picture to that which I was putting up for debate.

A second thing I noticed - if you take grand slam win / loss percentages, Rafa is just ahead overall. 87.26%, Fed 86.21%, Novak 86.00% and Andy, for what it is worth on 81% (v good in fact).

So much to consider and debate and maybe I conflate slam winning with GOAT too much. I was once on a tennis forum called Tennis for Friends (rubbish name!) and a poster on their called Kalforpete could never ever see beyond Pete Sampras and all he had achieved - and yet now, he seldom gets a look in, most people by pass Pete and go straight to Borg or Laver when looking for comparisons with Fed and Rafa. And even Novak.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Yes well summarised Indy I can accept most of the logic in that post. Nice progression and decent debate to be had on this thread. If you take a piece of each of the posts that gives the answer. If that makes sense.