In 2018, the lawns of Wimbledon are once again generating their usual tingles of expectation across the sporting world and wider world. This marks the second year in which the grass schedule has been slightly different, with three weeks between the end of the French Open and the start of the season’s third slam.
This extension may seem like a simple thing but in the highly ordered and massively moneyed world of global sport, with each event and tournament fighting for optimum exposure and a privileged place in the overstretched schedule. It took years of work for the game’s powers-that-be to agree on this one shift.
The shift and extension is also an exciting and timely metaphor for another behind-the-scenes shift that has been happening in many sports and particularly in tennis. This is the shift and extension of body care and recovery science and technology, leading to much longer, older athletes having great careers. In the same way the elite players of sport have seen the long term importance of preservation and shelf life extension, so have tournaments had to adapt their schedules to facilitate something that world standard athletes have come to demand.
Roger Federer is enjoying a proverbial second chapter of his career that nobody would have predicted. At present he is bookies favorite to lift the Wimbledon trophy on the hallowed Wimbledon lawns at 13/8. Having had a career of winning slam after slam for a whole decade and establishing himself as undoubtedly the greatest player in the history of tennis, he then spent four years in what for him must have felt like the wilderness, even though it was a career many professionals would have looked back on with pride. He had a four year stretch where his average achievement was getting to the semi finals, he did reach three finals but he never won a slam. Time and again younger, stronger and seemingly fitter rivals were beating him. But he turned that around 18 months ago and won three more slams, how did he do it?
The seeds of Federer’s longevity are not just his use of cutting edge techniques and technologies, but the clever way in which his game is built. Because he was an offensive player, he always ended up running fewer miles than his opponents, even if he ended up losing (which, during his imperial phase, was very seldom). His backhand was either a low impact slice, or, to terminate a rally he would release the slight flick of his wrist to come over the ball and leave a rival stranded and red-faced at the baseline.
As Federer’s pristine soles tread on the immaculate grass at precisely 2 p.m. this coming Monday, no one will be thinking of these cutting-edge, behind-the-scenes dynamics, but they will be of vital importance as Federer starts after the five-minute warm up, to wield his magic wand of a racket.
[polldaddy poll=10042978]
Joe has forgotten that Fed has a few years head start over both Rafa and Djoko. Just give Rafa (and Djoko) a few more years and see what else they can win!
Even if Rafa continues winning the FOs and some others, as long as he’s ahead of anyone else in the slams, no one can discount his greatness just because he’s much better on clay than on the other surfaces. It’s not like he has won nothing else off clay!
Djoko too, if he wins one or two more WTF and four more HC slams (not impossible given his prowess on HCs) and may be one more FO and/or Wimbledon (again not impossible), then he’ll be better than Fed on the HCs even though not on grass, then is this clay and non clay stuff still applicable?
I have another longer post (about Rafa) but it couldn’t get through. I’ll try later.
No it is applicable till the numbers suit Fed. The day it suits others, some other criteria and parameters will be important..It is always selective cherry picking.
The % of slams won based on played, relative stronger competition to win them, the H2H advantage, the higher master titles(6 I think is difference), the Olympic singles gold, higher davis cup wins all does not matter as it suits his rivals
but higher number of non clay slams, higher weeks at No 1, WTFs all matter as it suits Fed
Sanju, thank you for proposing some alternative GOAT criteria. I’d like to consider them but I won’t try to tackle them all at once. Start with what I think is least important: H2H. I’ve already said why H2H shouldn’t matter much in any overall comparison.
First, professional tennis is structured around winning and doing well in tournaments, with big tournaments counting the most. That’s how points are earned, and that’s how players are remunerated. It’s worth remembering that the computer ranking based on points was a huge advance, from the players’ point of view, when it was introduced in the 1970s. The reason is pretty obvious: it’s the fairest system, rewarding players on current performance, not popularity or reputation based on previous performance.
Second, the players themselves routinely emphasize the importance of tournament performance and downplay the importance of H2H records. Nadal has made comments to this effect many times. One example is last year, when Zverev said that beating Rafa on clay was important to him. Nadal remarked on the strangeness of being concerned with that kind of thing, and said it wasn’t how he approached the game. I am sure Nadal would trade titles for H2H any day, which is how a professional thinks.
If H2H was as important as some Rafa fans seems to suggest, Federer would have had a clearly better year than Rafa in 2017. They tied for slams, and Fed won three big matches: one slam and two masters finals. But (I would say), Fed didn’t have a better year in 2017; Nadal did.
Give all of that, why would you say that H2H is so important?
I am sure Joe H2H would be important had Fed had the advantage over Rafa n Djoko. Given that he has a losing one against both , it is not important. That is exactly my grouse about selective cherry picking. Let it be known – Fed having a losing record against his 2 biggest challengers stands out as a very sore thumb.
Yes a player plays against the field and not against a player so it cannot be given very high weightage but if comparison between 2 players, it is an important point.
Do not forget from 2005 till 2018..Rafa has lost minimum 2.5 years off the tour due to injury..imagine had he not, he would be the leader today and not Fed. Fed is blessed to have a good body and an effortless playing style.
Well, Sanju, remember that for Fedal, I want to distinguish clay vs. other surfaces. And when we exclude clay, Fed has a narrow H2H lead. As far as Djokovic-Fed is concerned, it’s too close to mean much. In any case, I’ve given a principled reason for not counting H2H very much, and it doesn’t sound like you really disagree with it.
Regarding Nadal being frequently injured, yes, that is true. But we don’t know what would have happened had he been healthy; that’s a big “what if”.
Another issue I’ve brought up frequently is what Federer’s record (particularly the H2H with Rafa) would look like if he had switched to a larger racquet in 2007-08. (After all, it’s only since he switched that he seems to have gained the upper hand). Other people have asked whether he would have lost the wimby 2008 final if he hadn’t been suffering from mono earlier in the year.
One thing to say to all of this is: who knows? Maybe Nadal would have the lead in slams if he had been healthy his whole career (as you think); maybe Fed would have a huge lead in slams and been able to beat Nadal at RG if he had used the larger racquet earlier (as I think).
The fact is, nobody knows for sure, and all we can go on is actual results. Can’t we agree on that?
I think by the time Djoko catches up or surpasses Fed on the HCs, it’s time to separate grass and non grass then!
Lucky, of course all of my arguments about GOAT are premised on things as they stand today. I absolutely agree that things may change, and that my GOAT assessment could change accordingly.
How about you? Do you disagree with any of 1-4 above, as things stand now?
Joe, your comparison is not right, as I said Fed has a few years head start! You also have to take into consideration Rafa’s injuries and him missing so many slams and WTFs, especially during his peak.
What’s the point of comparing them now; what about Djoko? If Djoko wins a few more WTFs and HC slams to surpass Fed on the HCs, are you going to use different measures to gauge him vs Fed then?
Do you see how pointless to compare the three of them now for your ‘goatness’ measure? Just be happy now that Fed is given a second chance to win slams (like Rafa fans too should be happy for Rafa now for the same reason) when Djoko is in his slump; Djoko being the main one blocking both Fed and Rafa at the slams in the last few years.
Lucky, notice that 1-4 above don’t mention ‘GOAT’. They just make some comparative claims, based on performance in the biggest tournaments on different surfaces, about Fed and Nadal.
I assume you have no problem with 4: Nadal is much better than Fed on clay.
But it seems to be your view that Fed’s large leads on outdoor HC, grass, and indoor HC are insufficient to proclaim him much better than Nadal on those surfaces. If so, why the difference?
You say that Nadal’s career is not over. He’s obviously younger and may have several chances to add to his totals. However, although the differentials between Fed and Nadal on non-clay surfaces are not as great as they are on clay, still you’d agree that there is no way for Nadal to catch or even come close to Fed’s numbers off clay, wouldn’t you? I mean, he trails by 7 outdoor HC, 6 grass, and 6 indoor HC, with Fed still having a few more chances to add to those totals. Those differences may well end up getting larger, not smaller.
So, for the purposes of 1-4 above, I don’t see why it matters that Fed and Nadal’s careers aren’t over yet.
So? As I said, it’s not like Rafa was bad on other surfaces. Rafa had his injuries esp during his peak years and he had to miss many slams and WTFs. To me, Rafa missed his chances at Wimbledon 2009 where he’s the defending champion, USO 2008 too when he concentrated fully on winning the Olympics singles medal and ran out of steam by the USO. Given that he won Toronto and reached SF at Cincy, when Fed lost early at both, had it not for the Olympics, Rafa would have his chances at the USO that year. Likewise at the WTF that year, Djoko won that but Djoko wasn’t unbeatable on the HCs then, he lost to Rafa at the Olympics SF, lost early at both Madrid and Paris and lost a 250 final to Tsonga I think.
Not to mention Rafa got injured at AO2010, 2011, 2014, missed AO2013; missed USO2012 and 2014 due to injuries; just think, how many chances missed by Rafa! And, it’s not like he had no chances vs say a Djoko on the HCs, he beat Djoko fair and square at USO in 2010 and 2013, pushes Djoko to the limit at AO2012.
Rafa may not win many WTFs perhaps just one, but he has good chances of winning the HC slams esp with Djoko not at his best yet, Murray and Stan struggling with injuries, Fed not as formidable as his 2017. As long as Rafa takes god care of himself and prevents injury, at least the major ones, he can add to his HC slam counts imo.
Even if he ends up having fewer Wimbledon and HC slams and WTF, as long as he wins more slams and masters in general, who’s to say he’s not right up there with Fed, when Rafa spent most of his prime dealing with an ATG among his peers, and another who has at least a four year head start over him?
Lucky, I’m just trying to pin down what exactly you think, and as I say I’m trying to find areas of agreement.
I agree with you that Rafa is very good on other surfaces besides clay (with exception of HC indoor). I don’t think that pointing out that he’s *much* better on clay than other surfaces is tantamount to saying he’s nothing but a clay court specialist who can’t play on other surfaces.
But I’m trying to pin your view down. Again, I take it you have no problem with 4 above: Nadal is much better than Fed on clay. Can you agree with 1-3, that based on the record Fed is much better than Nadal on outdoor HC, grass, and indoor HC?
Obviously outside clay court R. Federer is better than Rafa but that doesn’t mean Rafa is not good on hard, indoors and grass.
Rafa is an exceptional player on all courts but overall R. Federer is the better player.
Lucky yeah you are right about rafa. But what bothers me is that the wear and tear on rafas body is much more than that of fed. The physical shape of rafa at 34 may be same as that of fed at 37. But yeah once they both end their careers we will have settled with this debate. The person with most number of slams will be the goat. But now for me nadal is goat and for fed fans fed is the goat. Lets hope rafa wins today. Todays forecast is dangerous for rafa.
RR, may I ask why, if you think whoever ends their career with the most slams is the GOAT, that you think Nadal is currently GOAT, given that he trails by 3 slams? If Rafa were to retire tomorrow, would you pronounce Fed the GOAT?
The one with max number of slams is not the GOAT. Slams cannot be the only criteria. If they were, people should stop playing all other tourneys. And slam is a slam , any surface slam cannot be lessened in importance. Infact given the sheer brutality and physical taxing effort it takes to win French, RG is the toughest slam to win as points are long, lot of rallies, points have to be constructed.
Though slams should get twice the weightage as a masters and that is how points are awarded. But both have to be considered .
Sanju, totally agree with this:
“The one with max number of slams is not the GOAT. Slams cannot be the only criteria. If they were, people should stop playing all other tourneys. And slam is a slam , any surface slam cannot be lessened in importance.”
That’s a big reason I keep going on about WTF. It counts! But Rafa has 5 more masters, so Fed’s WTF lead isn’t that big. However, I think it’s important that Rafa win at least one big tournament on his least favourite surface.
Yeah. I tell I consider rafa as goat because I am confident rafa will surpass fed in gs count. But yeah it is only my opinion. Others may have their own and I respect everyone. But by seeing your arguments it seems that you are making a counter argument in case rafa surpasses fed in gs count. Every three gs rafa enters he wins one. Therefore it would take 3 years to surpass fed considering fed does not win anything after this.
Well, I don’t think slams are all that matters; in particular I think the WTF counts. But if Nadal could win 1 WTF, and tie Fed in the slams, along with leading masters (as I expect he will), then in that case I’d call it a wash. And if Nadal can achieve those things and somehow lead Fed in slams, then I’d probably call Rafa GOAT.
But it seems to me that if slams are your main criteria, you should be prepared to call Fed GOAT at present, even if you are confident it will change.
Rain, rain go away,
Come again another day.
Roger Federer wants to win Wimbledon again.
🤣😉!
Well, rafa rules, it sure would be nice if it works out like that. I’m far less optimistic that Rafa will eventually surpass Roger’s slam count. We should be happy that favorable circumstances (three main competitors having been in a slump and/or sidelined) and his iron will even allowed him to come back after two slamless seasons and add three more slams to his trophy collection. Who would’ve thought so at the end of 2016? But I highly doubt that Rafa will keep playing as long as Roger. And if anything, Roger is the GOAT as far as longevity is concerned – for whatever reason.