What will Nadal have to do have "greater longevity" than Federer?

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
What do you think Nadal will have to do have "greater longevity" than Federer.

Years Between Grand Slams
Federer - 13.5
Nadal - win 2019 Australian Open or later

Years Between Year End #1
Both currently tied at 5 years
Nadal would be 9 years if he finished 2017 as #1

Years between being ranked #1 at some point in the year
Federer - 8 years
Nadal - currently at 6 years, would be 9 years if he gets to #1 in 2017

Years Between Year End Top 2
Federer - 10 years
Nadal would be 12 years if he finishes in top 2 in 2017

Years between being ranked in top 2 at some point in the year
Federer - 13 years
Nadal would be 12 years if Stan doesn't win 2017 French Open

All in all, I think Nadal has a very good opportunity to have greater longevity than Federer.
 
Last edited:
McEnroeisanartist said:
Years between being ranked #1 at some point in the year
Federer - 8 years
Nadal - currently at 6 years, would be 12 years if he gets to #1 in 2017
Click to expand...

I think this one's wrong. Nadal would have a span of 9 years if he gets to No 1 at some point this year (he first became No 1 in 2008).
 
Keep falling behind Federer in the Majors won category, so that Tio continues to push him further and further.

In general Nadal will prove that his own excuses were just that by playing until a normal for a tennis retirement age.
 
So what you''re saying is that for Rafa to match some of Federer's longevity records, he needs to get to #1 this year?
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What do you think Nadal will have to do have "greater longevity" than Federer.

Years Between Grand Slams
Federer - 13.5
Nadal - win 2019 Australian Open or later

Years Between Year End #1
Both currently tied at 5 years
Nadal would be 9 years if he finished 2017 as #1

Years between being ranked #1 at some point in the year
Federer - 8 years
Nadal - currently at 6 years, would be 12 years if he gets to #1 in 2017

Years Between Year End Top 2
Federer - 10 years
Nadal would be 12 years if he finishes in top 2 in 2017

Years between being ranked in top 2 at some point in the year
Federer - 13 years
Nadal would be 12 years if Stan doesn't win 2017 French Open

All in all, I think Nadal has a very good opportunity to have greater longevity than Federer.
Click to expand...

In one word: "nutrition". ;)
(h/t Carlos Moya)
 
ultradr said:
i thought rafa lasted longer than anybody in history: 10 consecutive years with slams.
Click to expand...

That's a thing??? Actually, it IS impressive. Roger had a mere 8 consecutive year of slam wins.

OTOH, Rafa had only had one year where he won 3 slams. Compare that to twice for Novak and 3x for Roger. Rafa has never been in all 4 slam finals in a year. Novak did it once and Roger did it 3 x times. Rafa did have a very good run of 5 slam finals (FO '12 to FO'13). But Novak had a run of 6 (AO '15 to FO '16). And Roger had an outstanding run of 10 (W '05 to USO '07) and another good run of 8 (FO '08 to AO '10).

All these stats go to the point that Rafa's 10 consecutive years are due primarily to his utter dominance at RG. While Rafa's resume is quite impressive, it seems doubtful that his body will hold up for another 4 years given his punishing style of play. As it is, it's amazing that he's made it past 30.
 
Last edited:
Gazelle said:
Win a slam at age 35.
Click to expand...

BeatlesFan said:
Pretty much. And if Fed retires at age 39, Nadal would have to play till that age as well.
Click to expand...

No & No.

Nadal started winning slams at 19, Federer 22

Your dislike of Nadal shouldn't affect rudimentary common sense

---

Generally, one doesn't think of longevity in terms of being #1 - Federer and Nadal are redrawing lines here

Personally and in this day and age, I think of longevity in terms of being a contender for Slams (and big events in general)

OP - you had a thread recently about Federer reaching finals at least 11 years apart at 3/4 slams?

I suspect if Nadal is to match Federer, he'd do something similar at French and French alone probably - and it'd turn into the recurring debate centered around Federer diversity vs Nadal clay

---

Here are some figures -

- Federer's played Slam finals in 13 different years, Nadal 11

- Span of above, Fed 14, Nadal 12

- Both have won 10 different years (Nadal to move ahead if he wins one in 2017)

- Span of above, Fed 14, Nadal 9

- Federer's played Masters finals 15 different years, Nadal 13

- Span of above, Fed 15 years, Nadal 12 years

- Both have won 12 years

- Span, Fed 15 years, Nadal 12
 
Incognito said:
I don't think Rafa can win a slam at 35. Just like Fed couldn't win a slam at 18 like Rafa did.
Click to expand...

Funny. Cause back then, Federer had the game, but not the maturity. Now, Nadal has the maturity, but not the game.

Back on topic, for Nadal to have greater longevity than Federer, he needs to stop relying on his fans to come up with silly statistics to try and sway the argument in his favor and get the job done so that there is no argument.

Winning the first 3 major tournaments of 2023 (AO, IW, Miami) would be a good start (assuming Federer doesn't perform next year).
 
Waspsting said:
No & No.

Nadal started winning slams at 19, Federer 22

Your dislike of Nadal shouldn't affect rudimentary common sense

---

Generally, one doesn't think of longevity in terms of being #1 - Federer and Nadal are redrawing lines here

Personally and in this day and age, I think of longevity in terms of being a contender for Slams (and big events in general)

OP - you had a thread recently about Federer reaching finals at least 11 years apart at 3/4 slams?

I suspect if Nadal is to match Federer, he'd do something similar at French and French alone probably - and it'd turn into the recurring debate centered around Federer diversity vs Nadal clay

---

Here are some figures -

- Federer's played Slam finals in 13 different years, Nadal 11

- Span of above, Fed 14, Nadal 12

- Both have won 10 different years (Nadal to move ahead if he wins one in 2017)

- Span of above, Fed 14, Nadal 9

- Federer's played Masters finals 15 different years, Nadal 13

- Span of above, Fed 15 years, Nadal 12 years

- Both have won 12 years

- Span, Fed 15 years, Nadal 12
Click to expand...

So Fed has a marginal, not massive, advantage in longevity at this stage.

Having said that, I don't think Nadal will play at a high level into his mid-30s, so Fed will probably remain a little ahead in the longevity stakes.
 
Adopt an entirely different kind of game? His longevity relative to the kind of player that he is already completely defies belief. Sometimes it's not simply about numbers but the context in which you put them.
 
Skip Indian Wells and Miami every year starting in 2019

Skip the Asian swing too and just play the Slams, Clay season
 
people thought Rafael was done when he missed the 2006 Australian. so I think he has done well in that regard already.

compared to federer? well, Roger came to prominence roughly 3 years before Rafael, so Rafa will need to play "well" three years after him? tough to have "more longevity" for titans such as these; they have both been playing with gravy for years
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
That's a thing??? Actually, it IS impressive. Roger had a mere 8 consecutive year of slam wins.

OTOH, Rafa had only had one year where he won 3 slams. Compare that to twice for Novak and 3x for Roger. Rafa has never been in all 4 slam finals in a year. Novak did it once and Roger did it 3 x times. Rafa did have a very good run of 5 slam finals (FO '12 to FO'13). But Novak had a run of 6 (AO '15 to FO '16). And Roger had an outstanding run of 10 (W '05 to USO '07) and another good run of 8 (FO '08 to AO '10).

All these stats go to the point that Rafa's 10 consecutive years are due primarily to his utter dominance at RG. While Rafa's resume is quite impressive, it seems doubtful that his body will hold up for another 4 years given his punishing style of play. As it is, it's amazing that he's made it past 30.
Click to expand...


2011 French Open to the 2012 French Open Rafa made the slam finals though....

Hell from the 2010 FO to the 2012 French Open he only missed one slam Final
 
Stupendous1HBH said:
I suppose the benchmark would be to win a major after a 6 month layoff at age 35 and winning 3 very tough 5 set matches along the way.
Click to expand...
nadalface.gif
 
BeatlesFan said:
nadalface.gif
Click to expand...

That expression was priceless. Like he knew it was out but figured what the hell. Glad the challenge didn't take away from Fed's victory celebration which was even more priceless in a good way.
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
That's a thing??? Actually, it IS impressive. Roger had a mere 8 consecutive year of slam wins.

OTOH, Rafa had only had one year where he won 3 slams. Compare that to twice for Novak and 3x for Roger. Rafa has never been in all 4 slam finals in a year. Novak did it once and Roger did it 3 x times. Rafa did have a very good run of 5 slam finals (FO '12 to FO'13). But Novak had a run of 6 (AO '15 to FO '16). And Roger had an outstanding run of 10 (W '05 to USO '07) and another good run of 8 (FO '08 to AO '10).

All these stats go to the point that Rafa's 10 consecutive years are due primarily to his utter dominance at RG. While Rafa's resume is quite impressive, it seems doubtful that his body will hold up for another 4 years given his punishing style of play. As it is, it's amazing that he's made it past 30.
Click to expand...

yeah, but clay is the toughest surface to dominate long term.
it's hard to understand.
no human being ever done it.

plus, I've been hearing same sheeeit for last decade or so: "Nadal won't last long."
they had no clue.
they still have no clue,
after all these years. dang it.
 
The thing is that we can define longevity in at least two different ways, and which way we choose is crucial for this discussion:

1. Longevity = winning at an old age.
2. Longevity = winning a long time after one started winning.

The fact that Nadal was much younger than Federer when he started winning is relevant if we choose definition #2, but not if we choose definition #1.

Waspsting said:
No & No.

Nadal started winning slams at 19, Federer 22

Your dislike of Nadal shouldn't affect rudimentary common sense

---

Generally, one doesn't think of longevity in terms of being #1 - Federer and Nadal are redrawing lines here

Personally and in this day and age, I think of longevity in terms of being a contender for Slams (and big events in general)

OP - you had a thread recently about Federer reaching finals at least 11 years apart at 3/4 slams?

I suspect if Nadal is to match Federer, he'd do something similar at French and French alone probably - and it'd turn into the recurring debate centered around Federer diversity vs Nadal clay

---

Here are some figures -

- Federer's played Slam finals in 13 different years, Nadal 11

- Span of above, Fed 14, Nadal 12

- Both have won 10 different years (Nadal to move ahead if he wins one in 2017)

- Span of above, Fed 14, Nadal 9

- Federer's played Masters finals 15 different years, Nadal 13

- Span of above, Fed 15 years, Nadal 12 years

- Both have won 12 years

- Span, Fed 15 years, Nadal 12
Click to expand...
 
Stupendous1HBH said:
Nadal has already ruined his chances of physical longevity compared to Fed. He played a too grinding game in his 20s. He's got 3-4 years MAX.
Click to expand...
You have to account for the fact that he has not played for stretches due to injury, like Agassi but not as long. That and an offensive style of play coupled with a monster serve (like karlovic) may prolong his career, but decline is inevitable 36 is pushing it in his case. Best case scenario, 34-35. Still I will keep my fingers crossed and hope he can play at the top of the game for many more years.
 
Guys, we're talking about how to SURPASS Roger in longevity, not match him. Stop throwing out 35. The correct number is 36. Rafa would have to skip 6 months and win right away through 3 tough 5 setters out of the last 4 matches, with 2 of those coming in the semis and finals (including at least one comeback in the fifth set).
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
That's a thing??? Actually, it IS impressive. Roger had a mere 8 consecutive year of slam wins.

OTOH, Rafa had only had one year where he won 3 slams. Compare that to twice for Novak and 3x for Roger. Rafa has never been in all 4 slam finals in a year. Novak did it once and Roger did it 3 x times. Rafa did have a very good run of 5 slam finals (FO '12 to FO'13). But Novak had a run of 6 (AO '15 to FO '16). And Roger had an outstanding run of 10 (W '05 to USO '07) and another good run of 8 (FO '08 to AO '10).

All these stats go to the point that Rafa's 10 consecutive years are due primarily to his utter dominance at RG. While Rafa's resume is quite impressive, it seems doubtful that his body will hold up for another 4 years given his punishing style of play. As it is, it's amazing that he's made it past 30.
Click to expand...
His game is certainly more physical than Rogers but he has changed his game over the years. He is a far better and much more complete player at 31 than he ever was at 19. Case in point, look at his style of play now with moya at the helm. I agree his attacking attacking mindset has not been consistent, but there is no question he is willing to adapt and change. Time will answer us as always.
 
Honestly, winning tomorrow would be a great start considering that people said he'd be done by 27. Would be his first Slam win in his 30s, having won his first Slam at 19.
 
Are there stats on points how many shots fed vs rafa? Rafa would have to significantly shorten points or even time on court. Thats what Sabr was all about.
 
ultradr said:
plus, I've been hearing same sheeeit for last decade or so: "Nadal won't last long."
they had no clue.
they still have no clue,
after all these years. dang it.
Click to expand...

Not clueless, There have been plenty of clues.

I first started watching Nadal play around 2004-2005. I saw his game as inspired and very athletic. However, it was also apparent that his style of play was very demanding on his joints/body. Because of that style of play, many of us assumed that injuries would plague him during his career -- and it has. Even early in his career (2003-2004) he had experienced injuries in his ankle and shoulder. Started developing knee problems as early as 2005. More knee issues 2007-2010 and again in 2012 % 2013. More shoulder issues 2006, 2010, 2011, 2015. Wrist problems, back problems, more ankle problems and a number of other issues.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/complete-list-of-nadal-injuries.565094/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Career Longevity of Nadal and Federer
Replies
12
Views
2K
Airspun
Airspun
M
Most Impressive Longevity Achievement
Replies
8
Views
735
ollinger
ollinger
beard
  • Poll Poll
Longevity and constancy... Federer or Nadal... vote pls....
Replies
40
Views
3K
FedIsBoat
F
B
Two Stats Regarding #1 Ranking I Haven't Seen Discussed Much
Replies
2
Views
453
titoelcolombiano
titoelcolombiano
M
When you think of longevity - do you first think time between first/last Grand Slam won, time between being #1, time between year end #1?
Replies
12
Views
802
73west
7
Back
Top