Lets see Rafa and Djoker do it first

Yes, I am biased. But convince me that Rafa and djoker will be winning slams at age 38.

We easily forget that Fed is 5 years older than Rafa and djoker and should be losing every match to them on any surface. Period.

This SF between Rafa and Fed can only help Fed, not hurt him. In what world should Fed not lose to Rafa at 38 years old to an ATG (if Rafa is so good this should be a breeze like RG SF).

Now if Rafa and Djoker are beating ATG's at 38 in slams... then you can hit back.

What if Rafa is losing to the likes of Zverev, Thiem, FAA, and Tsits at age 36/37/38?

That would be bad, much worst than this.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
The counter argument to this is that both may not need to play until 38. They may surpass Roger’s tally before then and then retire knowing that it will be decades before anyone surpasses them.

The hype levels over the next few days are going to be fantastic
 

Indigo

Rookie
Federer is amazing. Only a player with exceptional technique and understanding of tennis can play at the end of his 4th decade and be one of the best in the world.
 
We were already fawning over Fed's longevity back in 2015 when he was only losing to Novak and beating everyone else regularly. Pretty sure a lot of us were saying how Djokodal won't stay relevant for that long.

Shockingly it's been already four years since then, and the two of them are still pretty much there contending for Slams, possibly for a little longer. Not even talking about winning Slams, since they don't have a younger ATG to face n stuff, just saying they are still reaching final stages regularly. Nadal has surprised in particular.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
They won't, certainly not Nadal, but then they are completely different kinds of players so just making a straight comparison is pointless. Federer's level for his age is absurd, but there are other guys playing still perfectly decent levels of tennis who are as old or older over the past few years with the same brand of serve first attacking styles. For a grinder like Nadal to still be out there at the level he is at is at least equivalent to Roger flying as high as he is doing at his age if not more extreme.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
So you think Fed should win at 37 and 11 months old against an ATG at 33?
He certainly shouldn't be seen as the favorite considering he's in his late 30s but I wouldn't be overly surprised if he did win. He just last won a Slam at 36 years old. That's all I'm saying.
 
So you think Fed should win at 37 and 11 months old against an ATG at 33?
Even 33 is old historically. When Nadal won Roland Garros, he was just the fourth man aged 33 or more to win a Slam in the Open Era. Since 1968, only Rosewall, Gimeno, Federer, and Nadal have won Slams aged 33 or more. Agassi was three months shy of 33 when he won the Australian Open in 2003. I expect that Djokovic will eventually win a Slam after his 33rd birthday. But, so far, he hasn't even made a Slam final after his 32nd birthday. Likely that will change on Friday.
 

DjokoLand

Rookie
This is the problem. I like Fed but this was the same thing that was said when Fed was 29/30/31/32/33 etc and Djokovic and Nadal did all that. Most Fed fans said let’s see Djokodal at 32 when there legs are gone because of the style they play.
Djokovic still moves like a 27 year old. They both probably be retired by 38 but they might both surpass Fed by then.
 
You are the one who made the claim, support it.
I already did. 38 years old is way way beyond any age a tennis player should win a slam. Also, to do it against another ATG who is 5 years younger should not be expected.

Are you saying Fed should be expected to win? If so, then rafa is not that great.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I already did. 38 years old is way way beyond any age a tennis player should win a slam. Also, to do it against another ATG who is 5 years younger should not be expected.

Are you saying Fed should be expected to win? If so, then rafa is not that great.
You are just making claims with nothing of substance to support it. If this makes a potential Fed loss easier for you then carry on but he's number 3 in the world and your claim seems pretty bogus.
 
You are just making claims with nothing of substance to support it. If this makes a potential Fed loss easier for you then carry on but he's number 3 in the world and your claim seems pretty bogus.
Still never answered the question. You have yet to refute my "bogus" claims.
 
It's all irrelevant. Either you win or you don't. And the rest doesn't count.

However props to Federer for being in the SF at 38, amazing durability. Legend.

Also this argument: "What if Rafa is losing to the likes of Zverev, Thiem, FAA, and Tsits at age 36/37/38? " or similar said of Djokovic and Nadal as soon as they passed their 30's.

Younger players move faster, have more endurance and better physiques and a smaller record of injuries. And still Djokovic won 2 GS last year, 1 this year and Nadal has won 4 in the past 3 years. Yes, they won't get to be that old. But they have more than proved themselves, showing that it doesn't matter if you're younger, they still play better tennis.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
This is embarrassing how scared you Fed fans have become. The excuses are rolling out before a match even begins.

Do yous forget this is Rogers playground? Do yous forget that Nadal has been hopeless on grass for years while Fed has contested 4 finals in that time?

Funny when he was on this 5 match winning streak recently, the confidence was through the roof in Nadal matches, but all of a sudden his age is being used as an excuse BEFORE a match. I find that ridiculous.
 

snr

Semi-Pro
The counter argument to this is that both may not need to play until 38. They may surpass Roger’s tally before then and then retire knowing that it will be decades before anyone surpasses them.

The hype levels over the next few days are going to be fantastic
Agreed but man there is no competition for Djok-Nadal. I think they'll pass Fed but I'll be thinking of their compton.. the same ones Fed is dismantling at 37

People say Fed had bad competition? The competitors to these two are non existant.

Sure he lost to Fed but Roddick made final after final..... Prime Roddick even without his 2003 forehand would school these new top 10 folk
 

MeatTornado

Legend
I hate to admit it, but I never believed they'd be able to play like they are in their early 30s either. I thought they both would've broken down Murray-style by now.

I was wrong about what they'd be able to do at 30. I was wrong about what they'd be able to do at 33. I'm scared that I'm wrong about what they'll be like at 35-38 too.
 
This is embarrassing how scared you Fed fans have become. The excuses are rolling out before a match even begins.

Do yous forget this is Rogers playground? Do yous forget that Nadal has been hopeless on grass for years while Fed has contested 4 finals in that time?

Funny when he was on this 5 match winning streak recently, the confidence was through the roof in Nadal matches, but all of a sudden his age is being used as an excuse BEFORE a match. I find that ridiculous.
"Toughest draw of all time" ...
 

Lebsta

Rookie
I hate to admit it, but I never believed they'd be able to play like they are in their early 30s either. I thought they both would've broken down Murray-style by now.

I was wrong about what they'd be able to do at 30. I was wrong about what they'd be able to do at 33. I'm scared that I'm wrong about what they'll be like at 35-38 too.
In many ways they’ve followed the blueprint shown by Federer in mantaining longetivity by being smarter with their schedules
 

beard

Professional
In many ways they’ve followed the blueprint shown by Federer in mantaining longetivity by being smarter with their schedules
Can agree for Novak, but just lately when he really care only for slams, which he practically confirmed himself...

Nadal on the other hand almost whole carrier has big pauses in calendar, which suits him obviously...

On the other hand Fed really forced them to consider playing longer because he raised goal to 20 slams... Great era for following tennis....
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
They won't, certainly not Nadal, but then they are completely different kinds of players so just making a straight comparison is pointless. Federer's level for his age is absurd, but there are other guys playing still perfectly decent levels of tennis who are as old or older over the past few years with the same brand of serve first attacking styles. For a grinder like Nadal to still be out there at the level he is at is at least equivalent to Roger flying as high as he is doing at his age if not more extreme.
That's the misunderstanding people still have of Nadal. He probably played shorter rallies on average in the last 3 RGs than Federer did at this year's RG.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
If Nadal stays injury free and still playing, he can still win RG at 36 too.
That would be scary.

You have to wonder what our 3 greats have more than Pete, Andre, Edberg, Becker, and me.

Why couldn't we dominate at 32, 35, or 37 and they can.

How can they play 4 hours and comeback 2 days later as if it's the beginning of the tournament ?
 
If Nadal stays injury free and still playing, he can still win RG at 36 too.
I very much agree with that.
Is my post giving an impression that I was praising Federer winning at 36? Although it is very praise worthy but I was implying that he won his last at 36 and not 38 and his fans are talking about Nadal and Djokovic winning slams at 38.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Yes, I am biased. But convince me that Rafa and djoker will be winning slams at age 38.

We easily forget that Fed is 5 years older than Rafa and djoker and should be losing every match to them on any surface. Period.

This SF between Rafa and Fed can only help Fed, not hurt him. In what world should Fed not lose to Rafa at 38 years old to an ATG (if Rafa is so good this should be a breeze like RG SF).

Now if Rafa and Djoker are beating ATG's at 38 in slams... then you can hit back.

What if Rafa is losing to the likes of Zverev, Thiem, FAA, and Tsits at age 36/37/38?

That would be bad, much worst than this.
Wait and see. We will know if Federer's form at 38 is extraordinary or not in 5 years, and it will help us evaluate the current situation. In any case, I doubt Rafa would lose to Zverev, Thiem or Tsits at an older age. First he would have to play them in the first round, second, they would still probably lose.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Federer is slightly favourite to me. He has a higher winning percentage this year and on grass.

No excuses.
 

mightyjeditribble

Hall of Fame
No reason to refute a statement with no support. You are just making claims based on your feelings and whatever makes it more comfortable for your fandom related anxities
How is this for evidence that we shouldn't expect too much of Fed at his age. If he won Wimbledon, he will be the oldest GS champion of the open era. If he only reaches the final, he will be the second-oldest finalist of the OE, after Rosewall (who reached US Open and Wimbledon finals in 1974 at almost the age of 40).

I'm not saying Roger can't do it - I certainly hope he will. But nobody should hold it against him if he fails to do something that nobody has been able to do in recent memory.
 

Sport

Legend
I think this is a very interesting thread from @Lleytonstation. It is true that Federer did not face Nadal or Djokovic in many of his early Slams and that now, Nadal and Djokovic are facing an older version of Federer.

Anyhow, without Nadal and Djokovic, Federer would 80-90% sure win this Wimbledon (unless Kyrgios or Bautista could upset him). Which raises the following question: will Nadal and Djokovic keep winning Slams at age 37 and beyond? I think they will if the Next Gen continues being unable to challenge them.
 
Last edited:

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
The counter argument to this is that both may not need to play until 38. They may surpass Roger’s tally before then and then retire knowing that it will be decades before anyone surpasses them.

The hype levels over the next few days are going to be fantastic
Ah, but who will be ahead of who? Ultimately, there can be only one!
This era is now so weak that it’s true, 33 /34 year olds Rafa and Novak will be hoovering slams. But who will get the most? Fed will likely come third here!
But who cares, by then Fed will be gone and nobody will really give much of a ****.
 

The Blond Blur

Professional
To be fair, Nadal was winning slams as a teenager. He peaked at a younger age therefore he should be less likely to win at an older age. Obviously he has won slams at age 33, which by pre-Big 3 era times was considered rare. I don't see him slowing down though and he could win the next 2 FOs. That would make him 35 just 6 moths shy of Fed's last slam win.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a very interesting thread from @Lleytonstation. It is true that Federer did not face Nadal or Djokovic in many of his early Slams and that now, Nadal and Djokovic are facing an older version of Federer.

Anyhow, without Nadal and Djokovic, Federer would 80-90% sure win this Wimbledon (unless Kyrgios or Bautista could upset him). Which raises the following question: will Nadal and Djokovic keep winning Slams at age 37 and beyond? I think they will if the Next Gen continues being unable to challenge them.
I believe they will too barring injuries, just want to move on, or next-gen put them out.
 

Tennisbg

Rookie
They dont need to win slams at 38. If they have more than Fed before this they can decide to retire. Only in your imagination a player has to prove something to you.
 
They dont need to win slams at 38. If they have more than Fed before this they can decide to retire. Only in your imagination a player has to prove something to you.
Nobody needs to win Slams at any age. But there are various statistics of which players can be proud, and Federer could continue to be proud of his longevity even if Nadal and/or Djokovic were ahead of him in the overall Slam title count, so from that point of view, they do "need" to win Slams at 36 to rival Federer on that particular statistic. It's not only the overall greatness tally at which the players are rivals.

That said, Federer isn't 38 and he hasn't won a Slam since he was 36.
 
Top