Longevity and constancy... Federer or Nadal... vote pls....

Longevity and constancy... Federer or Nadal?

  • Federer

  • Nadal

  • Equal

Results are only viewable after voting.
beard

beard

Legend
Well, we often read here how Federer is constant and how he is player with great longevity, and similar....
We rarely hear here same thing about Nadal (not never, but really rare comparing to Federer)....

But, lets see some facts.... some longevity and constancy facts about slam results (slams only matters ;)) and being no1 player in the world....

Time span between first and last slam:
- Nadal RG2005 to USO2019... about 14 and a half years
- Federer W2003 to AO2018... about 14 and a half years
No of years in a time span showed above, that player haven't won a slam:
- Nadal 2
- Federer 5

Time span between first and last year to be no1:
- Nadal 2008 to 2020... about 12 years
- Federer 2004 to 2018... about 14 years
No of years in a time span showed above, player haven't reach no1:
- Nadal 3
- Federer 6

Time span between first and last year no1 end:
- Nadal 2008 to 2019... about 11 years
- Federer 2004 to 2009... about 5 years

So, Longevity and constancy, that is the question...
For me, clear winner is Nadal who is 5 years younger and have about same longevity as a slam winner and no1 player than Federer. Nadal is no question more constant in being great and winning slams.... And, at the top, all that with Nadal had considerably more injuries than Federer, and having Fedole as opposition whole fckn carrier....
 
Last edited:
Well there was a period where Federer dominated the field and Nadal was not as consistent. Now Nadal dominates the field and Fed is not as consistent. I was not watching for the first period so I can’t say how they compare. Longevity will likely be Fed, but we’ll have to wait and see.
 
FRV2 said:
Well there was a period where Federer dominated the field and Nadal was not as consistent. Now Nadal dominates the field and Fed is not as consistent. I was not watching for the first period so I can’t say how they compare. Longevity will likely be Fed, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
In terms of longevity Federer surpases Nadal in some stats and Nadal surpasses Federer in others.

Most Slams won in his 30s: Nadal.
Oldest Slam winner: Federer.
Oldest Year End #1: Nadal.
Oldest #1: Federer.

But as you correctly pointed out, it is better to wait till they are both retired.
 
Federer is more consistent. The amount of times he has made the 2nd weeks of slams dwarf the number of times Nadal has. Nadal has been absent or been upset far more.

However, in terms of first/last stats, they're in the same ballpark. Nadal had the advantage of an earlier peak, but Fed has lasted longer so far. I'm not sure I'd call that set of stats longevity, but it is what it is.

To properly say their longevity has been similar, we need to see Nadal compete at the very top for a few more years and win a slam at 35/36, which is entirely within the realm of possibility.
 
TripleATeam said:
However, in terms of first/last stats, they're in the same ballpark. Nadal had the advantage of an earlier peak, but Fed has lasted longer so far. I'm not sure I'd call that set of stats longevity, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
What means that Fed lasted longer? Nadal already won more after 30... If only age matters Karlovic is goat for Fed. We are talking about accomplishments here, not just simple age...
 
beard said:
What means that Fed lasted longer? Nadal already won more after 30... If only age matters Karlovic is goat for Fed. We are talking about accomplishments here, not just simple age...
Click to expand...
I'm saying he's been playing at the highest level at an older age. Obviously, Nadal can still prove me wrong because he hasn't reached that age yet, but Federer has been better at ages 35+. He won 3 slams and was in the running for a couple more.

I consider that based in accomplishments, and Nadal might be able to do it. We have to wait and see.
 
Right now it is Federer when it comes to overall longevity and consistency, but we do need to see how long each keeps playing to have a definitive answer.
 
Federer is more consistent. He reached many more finals, semifinals, etc.

Surprising that his peak lasted 4 years while Nadal's 12 years and going on, though.
 
Lew II said:
Federer is more consistent. He reached many more finals, semifinals, etc.

Even Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal.
Click to expand...
Well , in age adjusted accomplishments, Federer by AO 2015 was "only" 17-8 in Slam Finals, Compared to Nadal at the same Age being 19-8, which means Nadal is ahead by 2 slams and total of 2 extra slam finals played compared to the same age.. about SF and QF you might be right.. but Titles and even Finals played matter much more

And even if you want to whine about slam final distribution, Nadal is now 5-12-5-5 and Federer was back then 5-5-9-6
 
TripleATeam said:
I'm saying he's been playing at the highest level at an older age. Obviously, Nadal can still prove me wrong because he hasn't reached that age yet, but Federer has been better at ages 35+. He won 3 slams and was in the running for a couple more.

I consider that based in accomplishments, and Nadal might be able to do it. We have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Longevity is not defined as achievements when 35+, but rather 30+. Right now, Federer and Nadal are tied in longevity achievements. In terms of longevity Federer surpases Nadal in some stats and Nadal surpasses Federer in others.

Most Slams won in his 30s: Nadal.
Oldest Slam winner: Federer.
Oldest Year End #1: Nadal.
Oldest #1: Federer.

But as you correctly pointed out, it is better to wait till they are both retired.
 
Sport said:
Longevity is not defined as achievements when 35+, but rather 30+. Right now, Federer and Nadal are tied in longevity achievements. In terms of longevity Federer surpases Nadal in some stats and Nadal surpasses Federer in others.

Most Slams won in his 30s: Nadal.
Oldest Slam winner: Federer.
Oldest Year End #1: Nadal.
Oldest #1: Federer.

But as you correctly pointed out, it is better to wait till they are both retired.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure where you get your definitions, but I don't subscribe to the same idea. I define longevity as what oldest age a player is being able to play at the highest level (subjective). Thus Federer's ability to play at slam-winning level at 38 years old definitely counts toward his longevity.

You're right that in their 30s, they've done similarly well, but that isn't everything longevity is.
 
Federer got him beat by a few months between first and last Slam, and first and last year at #1 by a couple of years. Nadal got him beat by first and last year as YE #1 but on the flip side Federer has 12 more Slam SFs, so he's been much more consistent. It's still Federer for the time being.
 
Lew II said:
We should understand why Nadal was peak 3 times longer than Federer...
Click to expand...

Dodging my question.

I don't think Nadal is peak in 2019 regardless of his win/loss. You're the one practicing double standards as usual.
 
I'm going to say Nadal (surprise, surprise) but my reason behind it is because he's won slams in teens, 20's and 30's. He won at least 1 major 10 years in a row from 2005 through till 2014 and there's an 11 year distance from his YE#1 till his most recent YE#1 whereas Fed hasn't reached YE#1 since 10 years ago.
 
ReeceSachs said:
And BTW despite the trolling most people say Nadal peaked on different times on different surfaces. Only a few rate 2014-19 as his peak as well.
Click to expand...
Timespan between first and last year as #1:

Nadal 11 years (2008-19)
Djokovic 7 years (2011-18)
Federer 5 years (2004-09)

Federer's peak was clearly the shortest.
 
Lew II said:
Timespan between first and last year as #1:

Nadal 11 years (2008-19)
Djokovic 7 years (2011-18)
Federer 5 years (2004-09)

Federer's peak was clearly the shortest.
Click to expand...
So that means your agreeing with the people your talking about that say that which I have never seen.
 
Some of Federer's longevity and consistency numbers

Consistency
Longest uninterrupted time spent at the top of the world rankings -237 weeks
A phenomenal 23 consecutive semis finals - Meaning Federer was consistently in the last four of slams across all surfaces from W 2004 to AO 2010. That is six years!
An equally amazing 36 quarter final appearances - From W 2004 to RG 2013, nearly a decade Federer made into the second week of a slam
A staggering 18 of 19 slam finals across all surfaces from W 2005 to AO 2010 with only AO 08 not making an appearance. Federer was the most consistent grand slam performer of all time
Played every single AO semi from 2004 to 2014 - 11 straight years making the final four across two different HC surfaces Plexi and Rebound Ace
12 grass slam finals, 5 clay slam finals, 14 HC slam finals - The most consistent to get to slam finals in the history of the game across three surfaces
Played 7 straight Wimbledon finals 2003-2009, six straight USO finals, four straight RG finals
Three season he played all slam final 2006, 2007,2009

Longevity
Longest time gap between first slam and last slam - W 2003 to AO 2018
Longest time gap between first W title and last W title - W 2003 and W 2017, 14 years
Oldest ever world number one in history - 37.5 years of age
Longest gap between world number one at age 22.5 and age 37.5 - 15 years
Played in the Sampras Agassi gen, his own gen, the Djokovic Nadal gen, the Dimitrov Nishikori gen, the next gen
He was top 2 in 2003, he is top 3 in 2020 - 17 years later, he has dropped one ranking place. That is absurd longevity at the top of the game.
 
Last edited:
Lew II said:
Don't you get what I'm doing? ;)
Click to expand...

Trying to get people to say Federer is still peaking many years later, thus "proving" that Novak Djokovic is greater than him, because the Serb beat him in big matches in those latter years?

I'm genuinely amazed that you never get bored of the posting the same thesis in 1 million different ways. We get it - you idolise Novak Djokovic and hate Federer.
 
Nadal started earlier, but Fed for me has the better old level. Especially age 30-31. Only difference is he ran into peak Djokovic and Nadal.

I mean, can you imagine 2011/2012 Fed With the 2017-2019 field? He’d be a genuine CYGS contender and would make a mockery of the nextgen.
 
I've always thought of Federer as having the greatest longevity at the top (thus far, as The Big 3 are all still active, of course) - not counting some who are harder to evaluate as they preceded the Open Era -- i.e., Gonzalez and Rosewall. Connors also had great longevity, but didn't achieve like either Roger or Rafa (or Novak), great as he was.

The stats shown here do not reduce what Roger has accomplished - and may still accomplish - but it does show how Nadal's longevity at the very top already puts him squarely in that conversation. There are different ways to measure longevity, so individual mileage may vary.

I saw one comment that read, "The amount of times he [Fed] has made the 2nd weeks of slams dwarf the number of times Nadal has. Nadal has been absent or been upset far more."

Well, he couldn't have been upset "far more", as his overall winning percentage in slams is 88% to Fed's 86%.
His percentage of winning slams that he's entered - 19/58 (.328) - is better than Fed's 20/78 (.256).
Can Rafa keep it up another 5 years? Nobody knows. Will he have to, to take the lead in slam count? Nobody knows, but perhaps not.

As far as reaching the quarterfinals or better in slams entered (if I'm correct) Fed has done so 56/78 times - a remarkable 72% of the time.
Rafa has done so 40/58 times - a slightly lesser, but still terrific 69%.
 
Nadal easily it is not even a contest

Rafa won slams in his teens, 20's and 30's - consistency
Fed won slams in his 20's and 30's

Rafa won at least one slam for 14 years out of 16 since winning his first - consistency
Fed won at least one slam for 11 years out of 17 since winning his first

Rafa has been in the top 10 since Ap 2005 and if he doesn't pick up a racket until Canada 2020 he will still be there which will be 15 and a half years at the very least - consistency and longevity
Federer was in the top 10 from Oct 2002 - Oct 2016 which is 14 years

Rafa has won 5 slams, 2 YE # 1, 64 weeks at number 1 (and counting), 7 M1000 after turning 30 - longevity
Fed won 4 slams, 0 YE # 1, 25 weeks at number 1, 1 WTF, 11 M1000 after turning 30 what's worse for him is that he has had five additional years to build these stats up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
What impresses you more - dominance or longevity? Both?
Replies
34
Views
3K
Deleted member 307496
D
M
Career Longevity of Nadal and Federer
Replies
12
Views
2K
Airspun
Airspun
aman92
Nadal has a greater longevity than Fed
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
10K
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
M
How do you think Djokovic will end up with Ranking Achievements Over a Span compared to Federer and Nadal
Replies
6
Views
644
Milanez82
M
N
Federer's longevity is the best in the Open Era
2 3
Replies
110
Views
11K
itrium84
itrium84
Back
Top