Are Fed and Nadal really from the same generation? (5 year age difference)

[JennyS]

That is something I think often gets overlooked when people talk about them. I know they've been 1-2 since 2005 and have won almost all of the majors in recent years, but are they really from the same generation? They are half a decade apart in age. And 5 years is a LONG time in tennis.

Let's just consider the age difference between Pete and his rivals:


Pete Sampras's rivals:
Andre Agassi: 1.25 years older than Pete
Jim Courier, 1 year older than Pete
Goran Ivanisevic: one month younger than Pete
Boris Becker: 4 years older than Pete
Michael Chang: 6 months younger than Pete
Patrick Rafter: 1 1/3 years younger than Pete

How many players born after 1975 were ever really considered to be Pete's rivals or from his generation?

Meanwhile, consider that three much younger players are considered to be Roger's rivals:

Rafael Nadal: 5 years younger than Roger
Novak Djokovic: 6 years younger than Roger
Andy Murray: 6 years younger than Roger

Plus you have Del Potro (7 years younger than Roger) and Monfils (5 years younger than Roger).

So I think it's very impressive to consider how well Roger is doing considering he at least 5 years older than most of his current rivals.

 

[DarthFed]

I honestly wouldn't consider Nadal and the others in his generation

But i do find it funny..he appears to have more stamina than all of them, and doesn't get injured and can endure heat better etc etc

 

[icedevil0289]

I honestly wouldn't consider Nadal and the others in his generation

But i do find it funny..he appears to have more stamina than all of them, and doesn't get injured and can endure heat better etc etc

Fed's fitness is underrated imo. He really is one of the fittest players on tour.

 

[JennyS]

Fed's fitness is underrated imo. He really is one of the fittest players on tour.

Yup. Compare his fitness to Djokovic's.

 

[theagassiman]

Yup. Compare his fitness to Djokovic's.

Oh come on.
Federer has never retired from any match before and can beat anyone in 5 sets handily except for Nadal.

Can Djoko do that?

 

[defrule]

This new generation doesn't seem to have shown to be a consistent threat either.

 

[fed_the_savior]

i think you (agassiman) misunderstood, lol

 

[JennyS]

i think you (agassiman) misunderstood, lol

Yeah, I was saying that Roger's fitness is superior to Djokovic's

 

[DarthFed]

Oh come on.
Federer has never retired from any match before and can beat anyone in 5 sets handily except for Nadal.

Can Djoko do that?

He was talking about the huge contrast..

Like Fed coming close to beating Murray in TMC with a bad back lol

 

[Dgpsx7]

Fed's fitness is underrated imo. He really is one of the fittest players on tour.

True, Fed has amazing endurance and you rarely if ever see him huffing and puffing even after a long point.

 

[DarthFed]

He doesn't even sweat from his face (his shirt will dampen) and he hardly grunts..too..you never feel like Federer is physically taxed

 

[egn]

To put things in perspective lets look at Rogers main rivals from like 2002 on when he started climbing

you began with

Andre Agassi (12 years older)
Lleyton Hewitt (1 year older)
Marat Safin (2 years older)
Juan Carlos Ferrero (2 years older)

than came along
Andy Roddick (1 year younger)
David Nalbandian (1/2 year older)

about a year after that came
Rafael Nadal (5 years younger)

and finally than came
Novak Djokovic (6 years younger)
Andy Murray (6 years younger)

and as of late you would have to thrown in
Juan Martin Del Potro (7 years younger)

If you look at it, it is progression. It shows as Roger outlasted the men his age he ran into the youth and it is inevitable. However unlike Sampras Roger has faced a strong upcoming youth earlier than Sampras did however the strength of said youth is starting to look pale outside of Nadal. Nadal is similar to the Becker type. Nadal hit his prime very very early for a tennis player as by 19 he was top 5 and a threat on multiple surfaces and he grew up fast. By 21 he was a threat on all the major surfaces and pushing his way to the top and by 22 he had become the dominant force. Federer at 22 was just starting to climb to the top and did not really cement himself until he was nearly 24. However Nadal had made a name for himself by 21 and if it had not been for Fed could be looking at something closer to about 9 slams by now. Nadal agewise is not of Fed's generation but he is a staple in Fed's era in tennis and it just came to be as Fed was a late bloomer and Nadal was an early bloomer and they hit at the same time. So although you might not think of it is as the same generation they are definitely legitimate rivals to each other, sure Nadal has the advantage of improving slowly instead of declining slowly but Fed has had the advantage of being around the block.

 

[joeri888]

Federer's generation:
Safin, Nalbandian, hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Gonzales


Nadal is just an early bloomer and Fed a really late one, other than that they are not the same generation. Depends on whether you think Becker and Sampras are same generation for instance

 

[Tennis_Bum]

That is something I think often gets overlooked when people talk about them. I know they've been 1-2 since 2005 and have won almost all of the majors in recent years, but are they really from the same generation? They are half a decade apart in age. And 5 years is a LONG time in tennis.

Let's just consider the age difference between Pete and his rivals:


Pete Sampras's rivals:
Andre Agassi: 1.25 years older than Pete
Jim Courier, 1 year older than Pete
Goran Ivanisevic: one month younger than Pete
Boris Becker: 4 years older than Pete
Michael Chang: 6 months younger than Pete
Patrick Rafter: 1 1/3 years younger than Pete

How many players born after 1975 were ever really considered to be Pete's rivals or from his generation?

Meanwhile, consider that three much younger players are considered to be Roger's rivals:

Rafael Nadal: 5 years younger than Roger
Novak Djokovic: 6 years younger than Roger
Andy Murray: 6 years younger than Roger

Plus you have Del Potro (7 years younger than Roger) and Monfils (5 years younger than Roger).

So I think it's very impressive to consider how well Roger is doing considering he at least 5 years older than most of his current rivals.

No, Fed is not in the same generation as Nadal by a long shot. Fed's game is in a decline for sure, no question about it but Fed still has the good to compete against younger players. By no means do I concede that Nadal, Djoko, Murray, and Del Potro and other younger players are dominating Fed right now. I just say that Fed is not the same period as they are now.
Fed won't win days in and days out, but he'll give a good show most of the time. Let's see how Nadal will do in 4 to 5 years from now. I say he won't even be around then. Nadal will only be in the top tennis if and only if he'll be able to fetch those balls. If he can't fetch then I'll bet he'll stop playing tennis altogether.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

I wouldn't say Nadal and Fed are in the same generation but certainly in the same era. The fact that Fed is playing this well so late in his career and Nadal playing so well early in his career alomst mandates it. They have spent so many years at 1 and 2 that there is no question there eras are very intertwined.

 

[lovecr717]

He doesn't even sweat from his face (his shirt will dampen) and he hardly grunts..too..you never feel like Federer is physically taxed

LOL my mom once said, "that guy (federer) doesnt even sweat , look at his opponent (nadal )"

=D

 

[roysid]

Fed was around for quite a while.
2001 - Reached French and Wimbledon QF. Beat Sampras.
2002 - Won Hamburg masters
He was in top 20 but that's it.

But from 2003, Fed reached top league. He won Wimbledon(just before 22 yrs), Year end masters and reached No. 2.

2004, he utterly dominated.

2005 - the arrival of Nadal. He won french just after he turned 19 and became No. 2.

2006-2008 - For nearly 4 years, Fed and Nadal were at No. 1 & 2 and for 1 year after that they are No. 2 & 1.

So even though Fed and Nadal are of different generations they had a great rivalry for 5 years going.

Fed's contemporaries have all faded out Rod, Hewitt, Safin..
Nadal's generation came late. First Djokovic from 2007, Murray in late 2008 and now Del Potro.

 

[flying24]

It is more about when players develop than age. Becker won his first slam in 1985 and his 2nd slam in 1986. Sampras won his first slam in 1990 and 2nd slam in 1993. Federer won his first slam in 2003 and second in 2004, Nadal his first in 2005 and second in 2006. Becker made exactly 2 of his 10 slam finals after 1991. I see Federer and Nadal as 5x closer to being contemporaries than Becker or Sampras.

As for some of the others:

Courier- reached all 7 of his slam finals from 1991-1993. Had a very short peak and a quick burnout. Sampras of course won 12 of his slams from 1993-2000 and his 6 year reign as year end #1 from 1993-1998.

Rafter- was a nobody journeyman until 1997. Never past the 4th round of any slam until 1997. Didnt get past the 4th round of Wimbledon until 1999, or the Australian Open until 2001 (his final year on tour). Summer hard court wonder in 97 and 98, and only threat year round on tour in final years from 1999-2001.

Andre Agassi- strangest career in tennis history perhaps. Best overall years were probably 1990, 1995, 1999, and 2001.

Ivanisevic was that decades version of Roddick (better on grass and indoors than Roddick, but clearly weaker on hard courts where most of the tour today especialy is played) and Chang that decades version of Hewitt (weaker than prime Hewitt, and both burnt out in mid 20s).

 

[joeri888]

Roddick and Hewitt were consistent competitors and Safin was in there too.. However, Fed was just a class of his own, just like he was on any surface over anybody in 2005-2007. Roddick would be on Slam no. 6 or so if it wasn't for Federer. Now that would loke quite different

 

[flying24]

Roddick and Hewitt were consistent competitors and Safin was in there too.. However, Fed was just a class of his own, just like he was on any surface over anybody in 2005-2007. Roddick would be on Slam no. 6 or so if it wasn't for Federer. Now that would loke quite different

Well Roddick isnt good enough to win that many slams in any era. In pretty much every time frame he would have 0-2 slams depending on the luck of the draw. If he had the lucky horshshoe wedged up his ass that Kafelnikov seemed to have then he could win 2 slams. If he had the luck that say Chang had instead then probably 0 slams.

I also disagree Roddick would have that many slams even without Federer. Hewitt has a very good record against him and is a better big match player. Even aging Agassi atleast held even with peak Roddick in 2003-2004 when they played. Phillippousis at 03 Wimbledon, Blake at the 06 U.S Open, or even Haas or Gonzales at the 07 AO wouldnt have all been a cakewalk for Roddick to beat at the time too. I would say he would win 1 or 2 of those 3, but definitely not all 3, and if he is lucky he would win 1 more total (2004 Wimbledon but even then he wasnt certain to beat Hewitt or Ancic in the final).

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Rafa of course will be the greatest: he dominates his older generation (Federer), he dominates his generation, and he will dominate any young gun. Rafa's only weakness are gunslingers who run out of gas. But then again, anyone will have trouble with someone coming at them with guns blazing. This strategy of course does not win anyone slams. Soderling, Berdych, Blake, etc. will always be journeymen.

I don't get what you're saying here. On one hand you say Rafa dominates his generation, but then you say he struggles against "journeymen"? I don't get it. Talking out of both sides of your mouth there.

To the OP's point, I'd say Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian would be Federer's contemporaries. I think it takes more than age to define a generation, per se, but he did dominate his contemporaries, though he struggled with Hewitt when Hewitt was at his prime and Federer was "pre Prime", but has dominated him pretty much since his first slam in 03. Roddick of course he's dominated, and Nalbandian has been closer, but Roger's won pretty much every slam match they've played since 2004. With Nadal, it's hard to say, b/c he only won his first slam in 2005, when Roger already had 4 slams to his name.

But, by and large, my definition of "generation" or era is a lot broader, so I'd say that he and Rafa are definetly the same era, as they've pretty much dominated tennis since 2006.

 

[flying24]

Federer has won 10 of 14 slams since Rafa began winning Frenchs, Masters titles on hard courts, soon Wimbledon finals. They are definitely contemporaries despite the age gap. When one factors in their development rates they are more like 2 years apart in age vs 5 IMO. If 2008 is the only year Nadal dominates and is #1 (not saying will be the case but could easily be) it would make the idea of dimissing 2005-2007 as some baby pre-prime Nadal as even more ridiculous.

 

[PERL]

Rafa of course will be the greatest: he dominates his older generation (Federer), he dominates his generation, and he will dominate any young gun.

Nadal will have a hard time dominating the younger generation. Del Potro is just a preview of the next generation. He will start facing guys 5 years younger than him at 25/27 and at that time there is a certain chance that he’ll be past his prime already.

 

[grafrules]

Rafa's "dominance" will be short lived. 2008 might be his only year of dominance. I cant see him lasting nearly long enough at 100% to dominate, plus he will face the same challenge Roger now is being challenged by players alot younger than him. That is fine though, he still will end up with an amazing career quite possibly with 10+ slams or more, maybe the career slam, maybe atleast at tie for the FO record. However 4 years of dominance like Federer had simply isnt happening. Del Potro is only 2 years younger, but so much newer, and there will be others to follow. Not to mention Murray although he is almost Nadal's age.

 

[theagassiman]

He was talking about the huge contrast..

Like Fed coming close to beating Murray in TMC with a bad back lol

Ah I see.
Sorry, I don't eften get sarcasm .

 

[FedFan_2009]

Don't forget Dimitrov coming up. He's only 18 and has a "big game". He even took a set off Nadal in Rotterdam.

 

[GameSampras]

Yes and no.. Sure Nadal may have been the long withstanding Number 2 but never truly developed his game as an all surface player up until last year when he fully primed or peak. So I dunno.. Who knows.

I look at Hewitt, Roddick, Davy, Nalbandian (When he showed up 10 percent of the time), or Safin (see Nalbandian), Blake, as Fed's contemporaries

 

[anointedone]

Yes they definitely are. It is more about when you develop then age. Federer began becoming a champion in mid late 2003, Nadal was dominating clay and winning many Masters titles on hard courts as early as spring 2005. They are much more contemporaries than Becker and Sampras for example, who are about the same difference in age, but with Becker's best tennis coming from 1985-1991 and Sampras's 1993-1999.

 

[GameSampras]

Rafa's "dominance" will be short lived. 2008 might be his only year of dominance. I cant see him lasting nearly long enough at 100% to dominate, plus he will face the same challenge Roger now is being challenged by players alot younger than him. That is fine though, he still will end up with an amazing career quite possibly with 10+ slams or more, maybe the career slam, maybe atleast at tie for the FO record. However 4 years of dominance like Federer had simply isnt happening. Del Potro is only 2 years younger, but so much newer, and there will be others to follow. Not to mention Murray although he is almost Nadal's age.

Im sorry. But who exactly is "challenging" Roger from this younger generation? At least the slams. Roger isnt being challenged at all other than Nadal who is the only player capable of beating Roger at slams

 

[grafrules]

Im sorry. But who exactly is "challenging" Roger from this younger generation? At least the slams. Roger isnt being challenged at all other than Nadal who is the only player capable of beating Roger at slams

Djokovic has beaten Federer in a slam semifinal and given him tough matches in 2 others. Murray has only had one real shot to it is too early to judge him. Del Potro already has given Federer a very tough battle in a slam semifinal. Even if you still insist it is only Rafa that alone has been a huge challenge. You know Roger has won only 2 of the last 6 slams right.

 

[GameSampras]

Djokovic has beaten Federer in a slam semifinal and given him tough matches in 2 others. Murray has only had one real shot to it is too early to judge him. Del Potro already has given Federer a very tough battle in a slam semifinal. Even if you still insist it is only Rafa that alone has been a huge challenge. You know Roger has won only 2 of the last 6 slams right.

Sure.. But who is the only player that has taken out Fed out of those 6 slams ? Djoker with his fluke AO win. Why do I call it a fluke? Because he hasnt duplicated even nearly that level since. Also, who knows. He may never again. That may have been the last time we see Djoker play great tennis like he was capable of at the AO 08. And Fed was suffering from mono..

Since then its been nothing but the Fed-Nadal show. No one else.

Like it or not.. Its still a 2 man show until proven otherwise. Since Murray, Djoker, and the rest really havent proven themselves to be true champions.

Fed and Nadal combined have 20 slams. How about the rest of the field?

 

[grafrules]

Sure.. But who is the only player that has taken out Fed out of those 6 slams ? Djoker with his fluke AO win. Why do I call it a fluke? Because he hasnt duplicated even nearly that level since. Also, who knows. He may never again. That may have been the last time we see Djoker play great tennis like he was capable of at the AO 08. And Fed was suffering from mono..

Since then its been nothing but the Fed-Nadal show. No one else.

Like it or not.. Its still a 2 man show until proven otherwise. Since Murray, Djoker, and the rest really havent proven themselves to be true champions.

Fed and Nadal combined have 20 slams. How about the rest of the field?

This may come as a shot to you but if 2 guys dominate that doesnt leave anything for anyone else. I bet if Federer was around in the 90s at the same time as Sampras you would have seen virtually nobody else win slams from 93 onwards, other than Agassi maybe a couple if he got lucky. If Agassi were more consistent and dedicated in his prime years you might well have seen the same thing with Sampras and Agassi monopolizing all the slams between them from 93-99. I dont neccessarily consider it greater depth that Agassi's inconsistency and underachieving in his prime years gave others openings to win more where Pete either faltered or wasnt good enough (eg- the French). You wouldnt see the likes of Kafelnikov, Korda, Moya, probably even Rafter win any slams today with both Federer and Nadal around and both so incredibly consistent and dominant. I can gaurantee you that pretty much.