If Fed and Rafa played each other 10 times at each Slam during their primes

[NonP]

These kinds of exercises are all but hopeless. What do you mean by "at each Slam"? (It's a major, by the way, not a Slam.) In the finals? SFs? QFs? With the same draw for each player? Who's in the draw? Under what kind of weather? The conditions need to be defined first before you can have a discussion like this.

And what's this brainless gibberish about somehow ignoring the mental aspect of tennis? This is like the kids saying they "learned" a Bach piece in a matter of weeks (if not days) when all they've learned is how to play the notes. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of sports. Folks, a sport--not least of all tennis--is played mostly in the mind. That's what separates the contenders from the pretenders. And the mentality becomes even more important when you pit all-time greats like Federer and Nadal against each other, as they already boast a finely honed all-around game. They became Federer and Nadal precisely because they were able to cope with the mental challenges presented by their competitors. To ignore the mental aspect of a sport is to ignore the sport itself.

That said, if we're talking about the same kinds of head-to-head matches the pros used to play before the Open era, and if Federer and Rafa played each other in their prime on the same surfaces that the four majors are currently played on, these estimates seem the most plausible to me:

AO - 5-5
French 9-1 Nadal
Wimbledon 6-4 Fed
USO 7-3 Fed.

But I'd add two caveats:

1) I think Federer might be able to eke out more than one win on clay, maybe two. I frankly couldn't help but chuckle at the sheer number of cartoonish 10-0's on this thread. Prime doesn't mean 100% best all the time. Even great players in their prime can and do have off days, and nobody plays at his best throughout a match. Again it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the sport.

Also, great players find a way to win, just as Federer threw the kitchen sink at Nadal by attacking the net a whopping 84 times (and winning 64) in the '06 Rome final and came close to winning the match. And provided that these matches take place over the course of a few months, not years, Federer should make the necessary--and timely--adjustments as the tournament progresses. The same goes for Nadal on other surfaces.

2) I think Nadal's result at this USO will be very telling, because he has noticeably added more pop to his serve and also because as this is IMO the first time he's playing the USO in tip-top shape (during his prime, not his whole career). I suppose the serve factor might make us revise this list entirely, and right, that's probably what we should do after this and next USOs.

And, of course, this H2H only means that Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer, not that Rafa is a better player (which is debatable, but that's a debate that I think should be postponed until after both players call it quits).

 

[piece]

These kinds of exercises are all but hopeless. What do you mean by "at each Slam"? (It's a major, by the way, not a Slam.) In the finals? SFs? QFs? With the same draw for each player? Who's in the draw? Under what kind of weather? The conditions need to be defined first before you can have a discussion like this.

And what's this brainless gibberish about somehow ignoring the mental aspect of tennis? This is like the kids saying they "learned" a Bach piece in a matter of weeks (if not days) when all they've learned is how to play the notes. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of sports. Folks, a sport--not least of all tennis--is played mostly in the mind. That's what separates the contenders from the pretenders. And the mentality becomes even more important when you pit all-time greats like Federer and Nadal against each other, as they already boast a finely honed all-around game. They became Federer and Nadal precisely because they were able to cope with the mental challenges presented by their competitors. To ignore the mental aspect of a sport is to ignore the sport itself.

That said, if we're talking about the same kinds of head-to-head matches the pros used to play before the Open era, and if Federer and Rafa played each other in their prime on the same surfaces that the four majors are currently played on, these estimates seem the most plausible to me:



But I'd add two caveats:

1) I think Federer might be able to eke out more than one win on clay, maybe two. I frankly couldn't help but chuckle at the sheer number of cartoonish 10-0's on this thread. Prime doesn't mean 100% best all the time. Even great players in their prime can and do have off days, and nobody plays at his best throughout a match. Again it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the sport.

Also, great players find a way to win, just as Federer threw the kitchen sink at Nadal by attacking the net a whopping 84 times (and winning 64) in the '06 Rome final and came close to winning the match. And provided that these matches take place over the course of a few months, not years, Federer should make the necessary--and timely--adjustments as the tournament progresses. The same goes for Nadal on other surfaces.

2) I think Nadal's result at this USO will be very telling, because he has noticeably added more pop to his serve and also because as this is IMO the first time he's playing the USO in tip-top shape (during his prime, not his whole career). I suppose the serve factor might make us revise this list entirely, and right, that's probably what we should do after this and next USOs.

And, of course, this H2H only means that Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer, not that Rafa is a better player (which is debatable, but that's a debate that I think should be postponed until after both players call it quits).

I, for one, wasn't proposing to remove the mental toughness aspect from a hypothetical match up. So Fed would come into the matches with his characteristic mental attributes, as would Nadal. But in these kind of hypothetical scenarios we don't, for example, assume that, were Laver to play Sampras in 10 grass matches that Laver is already "in" sampras' head before the series starts. We don't normally presume such a mental history between the two players, although we preserve the mental toughness both have. That's what I was suggesting for this hypothetical - that we set aside Federer and Nadal's mental history, but not the entire mental aspect of tennis. Of course others could choose to include this aspect, I merely stated that I wouldn't.

Who cares if you choose for both players to be playing at their best for these matches or for both to be merely in their primes? So what if it's unrealistict for them to both play their best (relativised to the surface under consideration) each match? It's pretty damn unrealistic to suppose that two players would be in their respective primes for 40 gs matches - 10 at each major. They'd both have to be in their primes for at least 10 years even if they met at every major. So why not just stipulate that they'll both be at their best in each match. And with that in mind it doesn't seem so silly to say that at some majors the h2h would be 10-0 in favour of one of the two players.

For such an unrealistic scenario to have such strict requirements of realism (in certain respects) imposed on it only serves to take the fun out of the thread, I think.

 

[NonP]

I, for one, wasn't proposing to remove the mental toughness aspect from a hypothetical match up. So Fed would come into the matches with his characteristic mental attributes, as would Nadal. But in these kind of hypothetical scenarios we don't, for example, assume that, were Laver to play Sampras in 10 grass matches that Laver is already "in" sampras' head before the series starts. We don't normally presume such a mental history between the two players, although we preserve the mental toughness both have. That's what I was suggesting for this hypothetical - that we set aside Federer and Nadal's mental history, but not the entire mental aspect of tennis. Of course others could choose to include this aspect, I merely stated that I wouldn't.

What makes you think Fed (or Nadal) wouldn't develop this very "history" as the matches progress?

And just so you know, only one of Fed and Rafa's 4 initial meetings were on clay, and Rafa won 3 of them. Even the sole match Fed won ('05 Miami final) was a hard-fought victory for him as he came back from 2 sets down. This was before Rafa had yet to hit his prime on HCs while Fed was smack in the middle of his. And this "history" didn't prevent Fed from winning his subsequent matches against Rafa outside of clay until the '08 Wimbledon final. Some "mental history" it was.

Who cares if you choose for both players to be playing at their best for these matches or for both to be merely in their primes? So what if it's unrealistict for them to both play their best (relativised to the surface under consideration) each match? It's pretty damn unrealistic to suppose that two players would be in their respective primes for 40 gs matches - 10 at each major. They'd both have to be in their primes for at least 10 years even if they met at every major. So why not just stipulate that they'll both be at their best in each match.

Both practically and logically, nobody plays his best for an entire match. Playing one's best all the time is a self-contradiction.

Also, being able to play one's best depends a great deal on the opponent. If one fires 20+ aces, does that mean the opponent will have returned below his best ability? And if Nadal's best means smothering his opponent with deep topspin groundstrokes, and if Fed has great difficulty driving his backhand off the high-bouncing balls, does that mean Fed will have played below his best? You're not taking into account one of the fundamental aspects of matchups.

And as an aside, if you think it's possible to imagine two players playing their best against each other for an entire match, there's no need to hold 10 matches on each surface. Just one is enough.

And with that in mind it doesn't seem so silly to say that at some majors the h2h would be 10-0 in favour of one of the two players.

Between a Federer and a Davydenko, maybe. Between two all-time greats, very silly.

For such an unrealistic scenario to have such strict requirements of realism (in certain respects) imposed on it only serves to take the fun out of the thread, I think.

I'm all for fun. I just don't care for nonsense (and I use the term quite literally in this case).

 

[piece]

What makes you think Fed (or Nadal) wouldn't develop this very "history" as the matches progress?

I never said they wouldn't, I just stated that I wouldn't be supposing that they start out with any such history. Anyway, judging something like the development of a mental history is next to impossible

And just so you know, only one of Fed and Rafa's 4 initial meetings were on clay, and Rafa won 3 of them. Even the sole match Fed won ('05 Miami final) was a hard-fought victory for him as he came back from 2 sets down. This was before Rafa had yet to hit his prime on HCs while Fed was smack in the middle of his. And this "history" didn't prevent Fed from winning his subsequent matches against Rafa outside of clay until the '08 Wimbledon final. Some "mental history" it was.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I do understand that Federer having Nadal in his head is not so great an impediment as to prevent Federer from ever winning a match against Nadal.

Both practically and logically, nobody plays his best for an entire match. Playing one's best all the time is a self-contradiction.

I don't see how it is a self-contradiction at all. Could you explain? Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that anyone would be playing their best for a whole match. My evaluation of the hypothetical was based on players bringing in the day form they carried in to their best ever matches at the major under discussion.

Also, being able to play one's best depends a great deal on the opponent. If one fires 20+ aces, does that mean the opponent will have returned below his best ability? And if Nadal's best means smothering his opponent with deep topspin groundstrokes, and if Fed has great difficulty driving his backhand off the high-bouncing balls, does that mean Fed will have played below his best? You're not taking into account one of the fundamental aspects of matchups.

And as an aside, if you think it's possible to imagine two players playing their best against each other for an entire match, there's no need to hold 10 matches on each surface. Just one is enough.


You're right that it depends on the opponent and I made it explicit that I was taking this into account when I said that although Federer's best form at the AO and Wimbledon was significantly better than Nadal's best form but that Nadal would still get wins because of the match up issue.

Since I wasn't suggesting that both play their very best against each other for an entire match your "aside" is moot. One match would not be sufficient to determine a pattern since the same day form from both players won't necessarily result in the same match outcome each time.

Between a Federer and a Davydenko, maybe. Between two all-time greats, very silly.

I can understand why you might think it is very silly, so I should explain that my evaluation of the scenario didn't purport to factor in the way both players would learn from each other over the course of such a series. I consider such an approach to be far too speculative (in an already speculative exercise, mind you). My approach was just to match up the best forms Federer and Nadal has displayed at each of the majors and try and guess what would happen. Because of this I don't think 10-0 is unreasonable, I could certainly understand if someone were to disagree with the precise numbers, but it doesn't seem silly to me.

I'm all for fun. I just don't care for nonsense (and I use the term quite literally in this case).

Response in bold^

 

[NonP]

I never said they wouldn't, I just stated that I wouldn't be supposing that they start out with any such history. Anyway, judging something like the development of a mental history is next to impossible

I wasn't "judging" such a development that has yet to happen. I posed the rhetorical question to point out that developing some kind of a "mental history" is practically unavoidable over the course of a 40-match series.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I do understand that Federer having Nadal in his head is not so great an impediment as to prevent Federer from ever winning a match against Nadal.

The point was that the boilerplate about Federer having some sort of a mental block against Nadal is fanciful speculation at best. If the past results are any guide, the most plausible conclusion is that Nadal is simply a tough matchup for Federer.

I don't see how it is a self-contradiction at all. Could you explain?

If one plays his best for an entire match, then his "best" cannot be said to be best. He will simply have played at the same (high) level throughout the match. And in practice playing one's best for an entire match is, quite literally, impossible.

Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that anyone would be playing their best for a whole match. My evaluation of the hypothetical was based on players bringing in the day form they carried in to their best ever matches at the major under discussion.

You're right that it depends on the opponent and I made it explicit that I was taking this into account when I said that although Federer's best form at the AO and Wimbledon was significantly better than Nadal's best form but that Nadal would still get wins because of the match up issue.

I can see why some of you might think bringing in one's best-ever form is different from playing one's best for an entire match, but to me the difference is a merely cosmetic one. Here's why.

Let's say Federer played his best-ever match (at either the AO or Wimbledon) against a Roddick or a Bjorkman. So, according to you, he'd be bringing in this same form to the putative matches against Nadal. But the thing is, Nadal's game would not allow that. He wouldn't let Fed jerk him around the court with his FH, as he'd mostly attack Fed's BH with his trademark topspin strokes, which would bounce over Fed's ideal striking zone, and he certainly wouldn't attack the net so promiscuously as Bjorkman to get passed left and right, as he has considerably more arsenal than the (then) 34-year-old Swede who had few other options. And if Federer somehow does succeed in either task, even to a limited degree, then Nadal will not have played his best, as this is not the best-ever Nadal that most have in mind.

Also, can even a prime Federer said to be his best-ever self as a player? Many if not most of us agree that his serve has gotten better over the years, and of course there's that famous drop shot of his that he was so reluctant to add to his repertoire or at least utilize earlier in his career (yes, even during his prime). Can he be said to have played his best without these improvements?

I could go on, but you should get the point by now: This whole image of one's "best-ever" form is a phantom, a specter. It's not grounded in either logic or reality.

Since I wasn't suggesting that both play their very best against each other for an entire match your "aside" is moot. One match would not be sufficient to determine a pattern since the same day form from both players won't necessarily result in the same match outcome each time.

Again this doesn't make sense at all. Why look for a "pattern" when you presuppose that both players would carry their best-ever form into these imaginary matchups? For there to be the need to determine a pattern, there must be some changes between these matches. But if Federer or Nadal, say, tweaks his serve or flattens out his forehand more in response to his opponent's return or groundstrokes, respectively, this will not be the same type of performance that displayed his "best-ever" form in whatever actual match(es) you have in mind. Can this altered playing still be described as his "best-ever" form? After all this is not the same image of his best form you had envisioned. And would this same performance have been as effective against a different opponent? If not, then it cannot be his "best-ever" form or performance. And so on. The validity of the very term "best" depends on whatever variables are at play, in this case the opponent's game being the most important.

I just don't see how anyone who has taken the matchup issue into account, as you say you did, can think it possible for a player's "best-ever" form to be carried from match to match, even in speculation.

I can understand why you might think it is very silly, so I should explain that my evaluation of the scenario didn't purport to factor in the way both players would learn from each other over the course of such a series. I consider such an approach to be far too speculative (in an already speculative exercise, mind you). My approach was just to match up the best forms Federer and Nadal has displayed at each of the majors and try and guess what would happen. Because of this I don't think 10-0 is unreasonable, I could certainly understand if someone were to disagree with the precise numbers, but it doesn't seem silly to me.

You're entitled to this opinion, but quite frankly I find it laughable to project for anyone a 10-0 blowout against any of the all-time greats, on any surface.

 

[Sharpshooter]

How stupid is this? Fed's "prime" in 2006 is highly overrated. You tell me who the hell were the tough opponents? Nadal wasn't anywhere near it yet, Hewitt and Roddick were a joke, Djokovic wasn't any where near it... Why the hell is everybody impressed with a 92-5 record against opponents that have not done much at all at the time?

Nadal was still only a teenager and still kicked "prime" Fed's butt in FO and in the wimby final, his inexperience caused him to lose the second set but was still good enough to get the third set in a tiebreak. If that was prime Nadal then there is no way he would've lost that second set (up 5-4 and serving for it). He also would not have lost the first set 6-0 either and being up 2 sets to 1 I highly doubt he would've let that one slip.

Here's how it will happen:

Nadal - Federer

AO: 6 - 4
Reason:
If Fed couldn't beat Nadal after a 5 hour marathon then hard to see him having a winning h2h record at that slam with the slower HC.

FO: 10 - 0
Reason:
No it is not ludicrous to think Fed would not beat him there, in fact it would be ludicrous to think otherwise. Nadal is unbeateable there when fully fit and in his prime.

SW19: 5 - 5
Reason:
Fed owned Wimbledon for so long BUT he never had to face anyone as tough as an improved Rafa from 07-08. This one would be split IMO.

USO: 2 - 8
Reason:
This is the tournament that Fed has owned even more than Wimbledon IMO. Nadal would probably only beat him max 3 times.

Total:
Nadal - 23
Federer - 17

Now that total coincides with their current H2H and makes the most sense.

 

[piece]

I wasn't "judging" such a development that has yet to happen. I posed the rhetorical question to point out that developing some kind of a "mental history" is practically unavoidable over the course of a 40-match series.

Yes it is practically unavoidable, I don't disagree with this. I just don't understand you reprimanding me for failing to consider such a history when any attempt to predict it in a useful way cannot help but fail to take account of all the relevant factors in the evolution of the history to such a degree as to be completely useless. Thus it seems quite reasonable that I chose not to include the development of a mental history in my h2h predictions

The point was that the boilerplate about Federer having some sort of a mental block against Nadal is fanciful speculation at best. If the past results are any guide, the most plausible conclusion is that Nadal is simply a tough matchup for Federer.

I hardly think it is fanciful speculation given the number of times Federer has been playing extremely well against Nadal only to blow his lead with a swathe of unforced errors (see Dubai '06, Rome '06 for a terrible UE on match point, Monte Carlo '08, Hamburg '08, AO '09). Especially when doing so was completely uncharacterstic of the Federer game at the time (he seems to do it fairly often nowadays). You're quite right in suggesting there is a matchup issue though and I would think that this matchup issue is the main cause of the mental advantage Nadal now enjoys

If one plays his best for an entire match, then his "best" cannot be said to be best. He will simply have played at the same (high) level throughout the match. And in practice playing one's best for an entire match is, quite literally, impossible.


Well what you're saying, by claiming the presence of a contradiction, is that someone playing their best for an entire match is logically impossible. I simply can't fathom how this can be the case, and you explanation hasn't helped me in this. Consider the broadly logically possible case of a player hitting an ace on every first serve and hitting a return winner off every one of their opponent's serves; now this is almost certainly never going to happen in real life, but that doesn't mean it is a contradictory scenario. Also, if we imagine that this player has never played this well before this match, and never again plays this well, I see no problem in describing what the player has done as "playing at their best for an entire match". I see no logical compulsion to merely describe it as playing "at the same (high) level throughout the match".

Nevertheless, in my h2h predictions I was not claiming that either player would be at their best for the entire match

I can see why some of you might think bringing in one's best-ever form is different from playing one's best for an entire match, but to me the difference is a merely cosmetic one. Here's why.

Let's say Federer played his best-ever match (at either the AO or Wimbledon) against a Roddick or a Bjorkman. So, according to you, he'd be bringing in this same form to the putative matches against Nadal. But the thing is, Nadal's game would not allow that. He wouldn't let Fed jerk him around the court with his FH, as he'd mostly attack Fed's BH with his trademark topspin strokes, which would bounce over Fed's ideal striking zone, and he certainly wouldn't attack the net so promiscuously as Bjorkman to get passed left and right, as he has considerably more arsenal than the (then) 34-year-old Swede who had few other options. And if Federer somehow does succeed in either task, even to a limited degree, then Nadal will not have played his best, as this is not the best-ever Nadal that most have in mind.

This is, once again, an attack on the notion of two players being able to simultaneously play their best. My predictions do not require that this is possible, only that both playing a match in the form of their life is possible. That Nadal's game wouldn't let Federer's forehand be as effective as it might have been against Bjorkman only means that Federer wasn't permitted to execute his form to the outmost - not that he wasn't in that form.

Another way to look at my idea of best form is to consider that in the OP it was stipulated that we were to consider both players in their primes. We are asked to use only the players' primes because a "prime" is a period of form that was higher on average than all other periods of similar length in the players' careers. Normally this period is 1, 2 or 3 years long. Now, if you wanted to narrow "prime" down to an even higher level of play, you might have to consider the players' "peak" form, which might be their highest average form over a 6 month period. All that I'm suggesting is a further narrowing down to get their "best" form, which in my predictions is stipulated as being highest average form over one day. I don't see how this is any more ridiculous than talking about a 2-year-long prime, as it is just an extension of this kind of reasoning.

Also, can even a prime Federer said to be his best-ever self as a player? Many if not most of us agree that his serve has gotten better over the years, and of course there's that famous drop shot of his that he was so reluctant to add to his repertoire or at least utilize earlier in his career (yes, even during his prime). Can he be said to have played his best without these improvements?

I don't require that every single aspect of his game be at its best ever, I was just trying to choose his best period of form all things considered. You might think of this as the highest average of all the aspects of his game. So it is immaterial that his serve has gotten better, I'm not trying to construct some chimerical Federer with slices of his self from all different periods of time, I'm looking at a real version of Federer (say USO '04 Final) and saying that at no other point in time has his form been so good at this major as it was at the time of the version I'm considering.

I could go on, but you should get the point by now: This whole image of one's "best-ever" form is a phantom, a specter. It's not grounded in either logic or reality.

Again, I don't think you've established this.

Again this doesn't make sense at all. Why look for a "pattern" when you presuppose that both players would carry their best-ever form into these imaginary matchups? For there to be the need to determine a pattern, there must be some changes between these matches. But if Federer or Nadal, say, tweaks his serve or flattens out his forehand more in response to his opponent's return or groundstrokes, respectively, this will not be the same type of performance that displayed his "best-ever" form in whatever actual match(es) you have in mind. Can this altered playing still be described as his "best-ever" form? After all this is not the same image of his best form you had envisioned. And would this same performance have been as effective against a different opponent? If not, then it cannot be his "best-ever" form or performance. And so on. The validity of the very term "best" depends on whatever variables are at play, in this case the opponent's game being the most important.

I have no idea how they would change their games in response to each others' peak form at these majors and in these matches. That's why I eliminated such considerations from my hypothetical. It's not like I don't understand that these things can/will happen, it's just too complicated and speculative to factor them in.

Also, I don't see why you think both players' carrying best ever form into a match means the exact same outcome every time. It's not like the players' can't make different shot choices than they did last match. Their form doesn't act as some kind of mind controlling mechanism that refuses to permit them to hit one instead of another. Rather it is a constraint on how well they can hit certain shots should they choose to hit them. I could be in the form of my life but choose to hit every forehand into the stands. Your conclusion of "same outcome" as a result of "same form" just doesn't follow.

I just don't see how anyone who has taken the matchup issue into account, as you say you did, can think it possible for a player's "best-ever" form to be carried from match to match, even in speculation.

Well how do you think it's possible for two players to play 40 slam matches against each other, even in speculation? People like to do these kind of things on this forum, being a voice of reason doesn't mean you have to rain on every parade. And unless you can demonstrate that musing on players' best ever forms requires counter-logical reasoning, I don't think you can make a case that the speculation in this thread is nonsensical.


You're entitled to this opinion, but quite frankly I find it laughable to project for anyone a 10-0 blowout against any of the all-time greats, on any surface.

responses in bold.

 

[fed_the_savior]

F - R
6 - 4 Ao
1 - 9 Fo
6 - 4 Wb
7 - 3 Us

 

[P_Agony]

AO: Rafa 7-3
FO: Rafa 10-0
Wimbly: Fed 6-4
USO: Fed 6-4

These are because of matchup issues and mental issues. Just look at Wimbledon. In 2006 Nadal won a set, in 2007 he won 2 sets, and in 2008 he won the match. Nadal has this will to improve against Federer that Fed seems to lack himself. In the earlier years Fed won by talent and skills, but as his skills started to decline he didn't have the mental strength to back it up. Not against Rafa. Meanwhile, Rafa always had the mental strength even when his game was lacking (Dubai 2006 and AO 09 are examples, when Fed was clearly the superior hard court player in those matches yet ended up losing).

 

[President of Serve/Volley]

AO: Rafa 7-3
FO: Rafa 10-0
Wimbly: Fed 6-4
USO: Fed 6-4

These are because of matchup issues and mental issues. Just look at Wimbledon. In 2006 Nadal won a set, in 2007 he won 2 sets, and in 2008 he won the match. Nadal has this will to improve against Federer that Fed seems to lack himself. In the earlier years Fed won by talent and skills, but as his skills started to decline he didn't have the mental strength to back it up. Not against Rafa. Meanwhile, Rafa always had the mental strength even when his game was lacking (Dubai 2006 and AO 09 are examples, when Fed was clearly the superior hard court player in those matches yet ended up losing).

One has to wonder that if Fed had the mental strength of Sampras or Bjorn Borg.....

 

[NonP]

Yes it is practically unavoidable, I don't disagree with this. I just don't understand you reprimanding me for failing to consider such a history when any attempt to predict it in a useful way cannot help but fail to take account of all the relevant factors in the evolution of the history to such a degree as to be completely useless. Thus it seems quite reasonable that I chose not to include the development of a mental history in my h2h predictions

For the record I wasn't "reprimanding" you for not considering the "mental history." I simply said that Federer (or Nadal) would no doubt take mental notes as the matches continued, which you admit would be unavoidable. If you don't think Fed playing his best would develop the same "mental history" as you think he did in actual matches, fine, but that's not what I "reprimanded" you for.

I hardly think it is fanciful speculation given the number of times Federer has been playing extremely well against Nadal only to blow his lead with a swathe of unforced errors (see Dubai '06, Rome '06 for a terrible UE on match point, Monte Carlo '08, Hamburg '08, AO '09). Especially when doing so was completely uncharacterstic of the Federer game at the time (he seems to do it fairly often nowadays). You're quite right in suggesting there is a matchup issue though and I would think that this matchup issue is the main cause of the mental advantage Nadal now enjoys

That can be said about pretty much any other player. My point was that after '06 Dubai Fed still won those matches against his nemesis outside of clay that he was favored to win. Whatever "mental advantage" Nadal had obviously wasn't big enough in the end.

Well what you're saying, by claiming the presence of a contradiction, is that someone playing their best for an entire match is logically impossible. I simply can't fathom how this can be the case, and you explanation hasn't helped me in this. Consider the broadly logically possible case of a player hitting an ace on every first serve and hitting a return winner off every one of their opponent's serves; now this is almost certainly never going to happen in real life, but that doesn't mean it is a contradictory scenario. Also, if we imagine that this player has never played this well before this match, and never again plays this well, I see no problem in describing what the player has done as "playing at their best for an entire match". I see no logical compulsion to merely describe it as playing "at the same (high) level throughout the match".

Serving aces and hitting winners on every return of serve are extreme scenarios that we would be right not to consider. And even here one could and would argue that the server could've hit a slice serve out wide instead of a flat one up the T, or the returner hit a cross-court return winner rather than a risky one down the line to his ad/deuce court, etc. So no, it still wouldn't be possible to say the player played at his best level for an entire match even in these extreme cases, at least not without protestations to the contrary. And you can see how one's idea of "best" would differ from another observer's.

This is, once again, an attack on the notion of two players being able to simultaneously play their best. My predictions do not require that this is possible, only that both playing a match in the form of their life is possible. That Nadal's game wouldn't let Federer's forehand be as effective as it might have been against Bjorkman only means that Federer wasn't permitted to execute his form to the outmost - not that he wasn't in that form.

I frankly don't think this distinction makes sense. How would you know that one player didn't allow the other to execute his best form to the fullest if you didn't see the latter play his best? I suppose you could say that's because you had already factored in the matchup issues, but then you'd have conceded that he'd be playing at a lower level than you had seen him play while in "the form of his life." That's pretty much the same as saying he would not be bringing the same form to these imaginary matches, no? Again the image you have of him playing in these matches is different from the one you have of him playing in the actual matches you have seen. These two images aren't the same.

Another way to look at my idea of best form is to consider that in the OP it was stipulated that we were to consider both players in their primes. We are asked to use only the players' primes because a "prime" is a period of form that was higher on average than all other periods of similar length in the players' careers. Normally this period is 1, 2 or 3 years long. Now, if you wanted to narrow "prime" down to an even higher level of play, you might have to consider the players' "peak" form, which might be their highest average form over a 6 month period. All that I'm suggesting is a further narrowing down to get their "best" form, which in my predictions is stipulated as being highest average form over one day. I don't see how this is any more ridiculous than talking about a 2-year-long prime, as it is just an extension of this kind of reasoning.

But a player's "prime," as you just said, is a more flexible term that usually refers to a period of about 2-3 years. Here we have a lot more matches to choose from, including the average and even bad ones--which is why I said even great players can have off days during their primes. To me that makes for more "realistic" scenarios in speculation like this.

I don't require that every single aspect of his game be at its best ever, I was just trying to choose his best period of form all things considered. You might think of this as the highest average of all the aspects of his game. So it is immaterial that his serve has gotten better, I'm not trying to construct some chimerical Federer with slices of his self from all different periods of time, I'm looking at a real version of Federer (say USO '04 Final) and saying that at no other point in time has his form been so good at this major as it was at the time of the version I'm considering.

I wasn't accusing you of doing this. That particular paragraph was simply meant to illustrate the difficulty of framing a player's "best form" in the mind.

Again, I don't think you've established this.

Not if you assume beforehand that one player would not be executing "the form of his life" to its fullest potential, no, but I've explained why this is in effect saying that he simply would not be bringing in that same form.

I have no idea how they would change their games in response to each others' peak form at these majors and in these matches. That's why I eliminated such considerations from my hypothetical. It's not like I don't understand that these things can/will happen, it's just too complicated and speculative to factor them in.

Um, but how can anyone even give out specific numbers for these matchups if he has "no idea how they would change their games in response to each others' peak form at these majors and in these matches"? I don't see how it's possible to predict the outcomes without factoring in this important variable.

Also, I don't see why you think both players' carrying best ever form into a match means the exact same outcome every time. It's not like the players' can't make different shot choices than they did last match. Their form doesn't act as some kind of mind controlling mechanism that refuses to permit them to hit one instead of another. Rather it is a constraint on how well they can hit certain shots should they choose to hit them. I could be in the form of my life but choose to hit every forehand into the stands. Your conclusion of "same outcome" as a result of "same form" just doesn't follow.

Again, the key word is "image." I'm sure any image you have of a player's best form doesn't have him choosing to "hit every forehand into the stands." Now if you say he might choose to hit a few different shots on certain points that could prove to be decisive, OK, fair enough. But I still maintain that both players bringing the "form of their life" to any one match is an impossibility.

Well how do you think it's possible for two players to play 40 slam matches against each other, even in speculation?

But that's a scenario that's easy to picture in the mind (not to mention that it's one of the main premises of this thread). Having two players bring in "the form of their life" to these speculative matches is not, at least not in my mind. It doesn't make sense to me.

(By the way, the main assumption of this scenario is that the two would be playing each other 10 times on 4 different surfaces, not that they'd be playing each other 40 times at the majors.)

People like to do these kind of things on this forum, being a voice of reason doesn't mean you have to rain on every parade. And unless you can demonstrate that musing on players' best ever forms requires counter-logical reasoning, I don't think you can make a case that the speculation in this thread is nonsensical.

You're free to call my criticisms "raining on every parade," but I never meant to stop anyone from having fun with this discussion. I simply want the discussion to be reasonable. If that makes me a spoilsport, tough. :twisted:

 

[Noodles]

In their respective primes,
Slam Fed-Nads
AO 9 1
RG 0 10
WB 9 1
USO 10 0

 

[OddJack]

In their respective primes,
Slam Fed-Nads
AO 9 1
RG 0 10
WB 9 1
USO 10 0

+100

Nadal filled in a vacuum in 2010 USO. Subpar Murray. No Del Potro. Declined Rodge. Weak draw. Luckiest guy on tour.

 

[SoBad]

There has always been much talk about the H2H on different surfaces, etc, etc

What would you predict the result to be if Fed and Rafa, each in their respective primes (i.e., Fed of 2006), played each other 10 times at each of the respective slams. Here's my humble opinion:

AO: even split--5-5--assuming current AO court and balls
FO: Rafa by an 8-2 edge--assuming normal Roland Garros conditions
Wimby: Fed by a 7-3 edge....maybe even 6-4--assuming current Wimby grass and balls
US Open: Fed by a 7-3 or 8-2 edge

I chose ten b/c it's a nice round number for a good sample...even though neither player's prime could last that long.

AO: 10 -0 if both are in the final, how do you think that might go?
FO: 10 -0 no further comment
Wimby: 10 - 0 you did say prime vs prime right, we know how those matches go
US Open: 10 - 0 we know how prime Nadal does at the USO

My rough estimate is around 40-0 Nadal under this hypothetical scenario.

 

[TheFifthSet]

^^Why are your posts always so cynical and worthless? Seriously. Why would you post here if all you post is facetious drivel? You and sureshs seem to be masters in this department. Just curious.

 

[abmk]

^^Why are your posts always so cynical and worthless? Seriously. Why would you post here if all you post is facetious drivel? You and sureshs seem to be masters in this department. Just curious.

sureshs' posts/threads are worth a laugh. On the other hand, SoBad's posts are just so bad - not worth anything !

 

[jibers]

Fact is, if you have a losing record against your main rival, you're not the GOAT. For all those saying that their H2His skewed because half of them are on clay, aren't Federer's favourite surfaces both Hardcouts and Wimbledon seeing as 94% of his Grandslams collection are on those two surfaces? If Nadal could push Federer to 5 sets in 2007, what do you think he'll do to him now on grass, and on HC? Nadal is already better than Federer on both Clay and Grass, all that is left now is Hardcourts. For those saying Nadal needs to win at least three of other Grandslams to be considered GOAT, are you forgetting that clay makes up 6.25% of his GS collection. While Hardcourt GS makes up 22.2% of his current GS collection. If we throw in Grass as well, non clay GS for Nadal would be 44.4%. And I personally enjoy Nadals style, and a lot of people I know do as well. At the end of the day, the aim of it all is to win. No one is going to say that arsenal is a better team that chelsea because the play more 'attractive' football. Nadal's play completely overwhelms Fed. The fact that we are comparing the 'GOAT' to a 24 years old says it all. Nadal at the moment would beat fed cleanly on both Grass and clay (even in Federer's prime!). The thing is Nadal adapts his game, Federer doesn't and when he doesn't impose his own style he gets frustrated.

 

[jibers]

RE EDIT:


Fact is, if you have a losing record against your main rival, you're not the GOAT. For all those saying that their H2His skewed because half of them are on clay, aren't Federer's favourite surfaces both Hardcouts and Wimbledon seeing as 94% of his Grandslams collection are on those two surfaces? If Nadal could push Federer to 5 sets in 2007, what do you think he'll do to him now on grass, and on HC? Nadal is already better than Federer on both Clay and Grass, all that is left now is Hardcourts. For those saying Nadal needs to win at least three of other Grandslams to be considered GOAT, are you forgetting that clay makes up 6.25% of Federers GS collection. While Hardcourt GS makes up 22.2% of Nadal's current GS collection. If we throw in Grass as well, non clay GS for Nadal would be 44.4%. And I personally enjoy Nadals style, and a lot of people I know do as well. At the end of the day, the aim of it all is to win. No one is going to say that arsenal is a better team that chelsea because the play more 'attractive' football. Nadal's play completely overwhelms Fed. The fact that we are comparing the 'GOAT' to a 24 years old says it all. Nadal at the moment would beat fed cleanly on both Grass and clay (even in Federer's prime!). The thing is Nadal adapts his game, Federer doesn't and when he doesn't impose his own style he gets frustrated.

 

[KingOfTennis]

Federer - Nadal
AO: 7 - 3
FO: 9 - 1
W: 7 - 3
UO: 8 - 2

 

[borg number one]

Let's say Nadal is in 2008 or 2010 form and Federer is in 2005-2007 form, just for the sake of this discussion. I think Nadal would win approximately 25 of 40 total matches at the majors.

Nadal vs. Federer

AO (6-4 Nadal)
FO (9-1 Nadal)
W (6-4 Nadal)
USO (4-6 Federer)

 

[veroniquem]

For Fed's peak form I'd rather say 2004-06. His form started being shaky in 2007. Luckily for him Rafa's form was shaky as well that year.

 

[powerangle]

For Fed's peak form I'd rather say 2004-06. His form started being shaky in 2007. Luckily for him Rafa's form was shaky as well that year.

Something we agree on. Fed had already started to slip in 2007, post Australian Open (which was a very fine tournament for him). He was no longer dominating week in, week out, had some shaky mind-boggling losses (Canas, anyone?) and overall stats/numbers down from his 2004-2006 level. He was still able to eke out 3 slams that year, and that is why many people still considered him "dominant" or "in his prime" when in reality he had already started slipping...

 

[SteveO]

2008, 2010 Nadal would not stand a chance against 2004-2006 Fed outside of clay.

 

[veroniquem]

I'd take that bet any time. Too bad we'll never know. What we know is that 2004-2006 Nadal could already beat Fed on outdoor hard and clay.
Fed was very lucky to be older than Nadal. It gave him some breathing room (notably on grass). I'd go so far as to say if they had been the same age, Fed would never have been #1. by the time he would have started polishing his game, Nadal would have been completely dominant on all surfaces and Fed would not have been able to topple him the way Rafa did.

 

[abmk]

I'd take that bet any time. Too bad we'll never know. What we know is that 2004-2006 Nadal could already beat Fed on outdoor hard and clay.
Fed was very lucky to be older than Nadal. It gave him some breathing room (notably on grass). I'd go so far as to say if they had been the same age, Fed would never have been #1. by the time he would have started polishing his game, Nadal would have been completely dominant on all surfaces and Fed would not have been able to topple him the way Rafa did.

LOL ! another post of yours that doesn't have much thought behind it. this is something that can be noticed by someone who puts in some thought, rafa pretty much said the same thing - when rafa was rising, he had a standard in federer to look up to ( outside of clay that is ), that gave him the motivation to work harder and improve - not that he wouldn't have improved otherwise, but pace of improvement would have been lesser ......

what made federer's reign extraordinary was that he didn't slip even a bit , though he was dominating the field like no one else in the open era ( only borg was close )

Even if they were of the same ages, LOL @ nadal would have been dominant on all surfaces , federer at his peak > nadal at his peak on any surface except clay ....

 

[SteveO]

I'd take that bet any time. Too bad we'll never know. What we know is that 2004-2006 Nadal could already beat Fed on outdoor hard and clay.
Fed was very lucky to be older than Nadal. It gave him some breathing room (notably on grass). I'd go so far as to say if they had been the same age, Fed would never have been #1. by the time he would have started polishing his game, Nadal would have been completely dominant on all surfaces and Fed would not have been able to topple him the way Rafa did.

At the end of 2007, i.e. end of Fed's prime, the H2H off clay was 5-2 for Fed. At slams the most Rafa would get off clay is one set in any of them.

 

[ultradr]

There are reasons why these players came out as the best players in their era.

1990's was the era of extreme polarized tennis on each surfaces. The grass was fast and slippery. Clay was mud slow. Even hard courts came with very different speed and playing characteristics. You had to play totally different type of game on each surface. You serve and volley with flat strokes at Wimbledon. You play top-spin pushing game. You play all court game at US Open and power bestline game at Australian Open. In general fast court players dominated the era though. Sampras' power all court game. Agassi who could hit on the rise.

The tennis transformed between 2001 and 2003 when each slams started to slow their surfaces and made them bouncy. Post 2003 is an era of homogenized baseline tennis on slow and bouncy surfaces. Even Wimbledon is now slow and bouncy as very slow hard court of 90's. On the other hand, clay is faster. So you end up in conditions in which you play more or less same brand of tennis on all 4 slams. Nadal and Federer are the best players on this condition so far.

If Nadal or Federer played in 90's, their best chances are on clay and maybe slow hard courts like Australian Open. Federer might do some damages on grass courts of 90's but definitely not like 6 Wimbledons. The hard court in north america like the on at US Open was much faster and Federer once quote "unplayable". Nadal could be successful on hard court but it would have been much hard to achieve career slam. In the post-2003 homogenized tennis era conditions, all number 1 will achieve career slam. In a way, you can't be #1 otherwise.

 

[jackson vile]

Nadal beat Roger many times while Roger was in his Prime, while Roger has not once beat Nadal while he is in his prime.

 

[MixieP]

Nadal vould vin all 40 times.

Or.... Federer vould vin all 40 times.

Or.... Some combination of vins/losses

Can't argue with that.

 

[Fearhanded]

AO: 6-4 (Federer)
FO: 0-10 (Nadal)
W: 6-4 (Federer)
UO: 7 -3 (Federer

Federer 19 --- Nadal 21

 

[Fearhanded]

Let's say Nadal is in 2008 or 2010 form and Federer is in 2005-2007 form, just for the sake of this discussion. I think Nadal would win approximately 25 of 40 total matches at the majors.

Nadal vs. Federer

AO (6-4 Nadal)
FO (9-1 Nadal)
W (6-4 Nadal)
USO (4-6 Federer)

BorgNumberOne, just curious, why do you think Rafa will have the edge at Wimbledon? (Not criticizing, just asking your opinion since you seem to be very knowledgeable about tennis). IMO, Federer would have an edge there because he won 2 of the 3 Finals they played and even when Nadal was playing his best grass court tennis (so far) Federer still made him take it from him in a huge five setter. What are your thoughts?

 

[SteveO]

Nadal beat Roger many times while Roger was in his Prime, while Roger has not once beat Nadal while he is in his prime.

Wasn't Nadal in his prime in 2009? He just had a monster 2008.