Career Longevity of Nadal and Federer

[McEnroeisanartist]

It seems a lot of people think that Federer has more career longevity than his rival Nadal. It also seems a lot of commentators excuse Federer's results over the last several years because of his increasing age. Many also say lets see how Nadal does in his late 20s and early 30s in comparison to Federer.

But Nadal had much more success earlier than Federer, so wouldn't a more fair comparison be looking at their results in comparison to winning their first Grand Slam, ranking #1, #2, and so on.

For example: Federer first won his first Grand Slam at the age of 21 years and 11 months. So far, he won his last Grand Slam at the age of 30 years 11 months. Nadal won his first Grand Slam at the age of 19 years. For Nadal to have greater Grand Slam winning longevity than Federer, he would have a Grand Slam after this year's French Open. .

Federer first ranked #1 at the age of 22 years 6 months. He last ranked #1 at the age of 31 years and 3 months. Nadal was first ranked #1 at the age of 22 years and 2 months. For Nadal to have greater longevity as a #1 player, he would have to be ranked #1 at 30 years and 11 months, which would be roughly May 2017.

Federer first ranked #2 at the age of 22 years. He last ranked #2 at the age of 31 years and 9 months. Nadal was first ranked #2 at the age of 19 years and 2 months. For Nadal to have greater longevity as a #2 player, he would have to be ranked #2 at 28 years and 11 months which would be roughly May 2015.

 

[Deleted member 699290]

I think the only fact that's important in this argument is 302 weeks at the top.

 

[ultradr]

Interesting points. I have heard "Nadal would not last long" for almost decade
by now. Here we came to a point when Nadal would soon out-last a lot of
past greats in terms of career at the top.

 

[Phoenix1983]

It's interesting that if Nadal wins this FO, he'll have won slams over the same period of time as Federer (9 yrs).

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

It's interesting that if Nadal wins this FO, he'll have won slams over the same period of time as Federer (9 yrs).

Very interesting.

Does it matter that Federer won 13 Grand Slams in the span of 22 Grand Slams between his first and 13th, whereas Nadal has won his 13 Grand Slams in the span of 32 Grand Slams between his first and 13th?

Its like what is more impressive if a player wins a particular Grand Slam for five consecutive years. or wins a particular Grand Slam five times over 12 years.

 

[Russeljones]

I think discussing Nadal's longevity is quite a complex topic. It all depends on which way you are leaning. Have the injury absences/sabbaticals shortened or extended his career?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It seems a lot of people think that Federer has more career longevity than his rival Nadal. It also seems a lot of commentators excuse Federer's results over the last several years because of his increasing age. Many also say lets see how Nadal does in his late 20s and early 30s in comparison to Federer.

But Nadal had much more success earlier than Federer, so wouldn't a more fair comparison be looking at their results in comparison to winning their first Grand Slam, ranking #1, #2, and so on.

For example: Federer first won his first Grand Slam at the age of 21 years and 11 months. So far, he won his last Grand Slam at the age of 30 years 11 months. Nadal won his first Grand Slam at the age of 19 years. For Nadal to have greater Grand Slam winning longevity than Federer, he would have a Grand Slam after this year's French Open. .

Federer first ranked #1 at the age of 22 years 6 months. He last ranked #1 at the age of 31 years and 3 months. Nadal was first ranked #1 at the age of 22 years and 2 months. For Nadal to have greater longevity as a #1 player, he would have to be ranked #1 at 30 years and 11 months, which would be roughly May 2017.

Federer first ranked #2 at the age of 22 years. He last ranked #2 at the age of 31 years and 9 months. Nadal was first ranked #2 at the age of 19 years and 2 months. For Nadal to have greater longevity as a #2 player, he would have to be ranked #2 at 28 years and 11 months which would be roughly May 2015.

The number of the played matches (1171 for Federer vs. 822 for Nadal) says a lot.

I think, that a lot of the people, predicting early decline for Nadal, were not factoring in the advancements in the nutrition, training regimes and reha possibilities/injury prevention (including potential doping use) and were factoring in burnout issues, which, IMO, were the biggest threat to Nadal's longevity a la Borg (and not his perceived proneness to injuries).

 

[Phoenix1983]

Very interesting.

Does it matter that Federer won 13 Grand Slams in the span of 22 Grand Slams between his first and 13th, whereas Nadal has won his 13 Grand Slams in the span of 32 Grand Slams between his first and 13th?

Its like what is more impressive if a player wins a particular Grand Slam for five consecutive years. or wins a particular Grand Slam five times over 12 years.

It shows that Federer was more dominant.

If Nadal wins this FO, he will have won 14 slams in the time it took Federer to win 17.

 

[Russeljones]

The nuber of the played matches (1171 for Federer vs. 822 for Nadal) says a lot.

I think, that a lot of the people, predicting early decline for Nadal, were not factoring in the advancements in the nutrition, training regimes and reha possibilities/injury prevention (including potential doping use) and were factoring in burnout issues, which, IMO, were the biggest threat to Nadal's longevity a la Borg (and not his perceived proneness to injuries).

Not his knees? I'd be surprised if we made a poll and more than 5 % of people indicated something other than Nadal's knees would force his retirement.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I think discussing Nadal's longevity is quite a complex topic. It all depends on which way you are leaning. Have the injury absences/sabbaticals shortened or extended his career?

I believe they have extended his career in the way that Andre tanking matches, time away from the game extended his career past his rival, Sampras.

If the Agassi-Sampras rivalry were flipped, they would have almost identical # of Grand Slam titles, however, Sampras was the more dominant player week in/week out during his prime than Agassi ever was.

 

[tennis_pro]

Too early to tell. Federer at the age of 27-28 had some brilliant runs, he won every Slam at the time once (so 4 in total), reached 6 Slam finals in a row (and had chances to win the 2 finals that he's lost), ended 3 seasons at no 2, 1, 2 respectively + he's won some smaller tournaments. It all went downhill and pretty fast when he was 29 years old, Nadal still has app. 1 year of prime-ish tennis.

The problem is that A 29-year old (and 30+) Federer had to deal with mid 20's Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and crew, who does Nadal have who's at least 3-4 years younger than him? Who can challenge him other than his own generation? Nobody. I'm still hoping for Dimitrov but he's already 22/23 and he's done almost nothing of real matter.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Not his knees? I'd be surprised if we made a poll and more than 5 % of people indicated something other than Nadal's knees would force his retirement.

Yes, his famous knees.

The treatment of those is, in some instances, close to using a blood doping legally, so I think, that even IF, they were the main issue in the eyes of the general public, the general public didn't quite understood what his medical advisors were capable of.

Not to mention, that there is not conclusive proof, that they are really the reason, why he has missed on tournaments. It can very well be, that the Warrior is more fragile mentally than physically (awaiting post from the King of the Obvious any minute now).

 

[Airspun]

Interesting points. I have heard "Nadal would not last long" for almost decade
by now. Here we came to a point when Nadal would soon out-last a lot of
past greats in terms of career at the top.

Vamos 2 decades of Nadal is Finnish!!