Why Federer and Nadal could both add to their slam tally throughout 2020

If you read the views of most tennis pundits and fans across different forums, you'd get the impression that Federer will always be stuck on 20, while Nadal's only hope is RG.
I think this is premature. Federer can add to his tally, while Nadal can compete in all 4 Slams (although he isn't a shoe in at RG like the media think either).

How so?, you may ask. Especially given Djokovic has declined less than Nadal and Federer, and will enter 3 of 4 Grand Slams next year as bookies' favourite.

The route for both of them in my opinion lies in the draw. I believe that a semi match up of Djo vs Med and Nad vs Fed will be ideal for Fedal to compete in any Grand Slam.  

Djokovic was exhausted in a 4 setter vs Med in the Aus Open this year. Luckily for Djokovic, instead of the next match compounding the fatigue, Nishikori unsurprisingly retired after 5 games. Medvedev is a better player now, and since then has beaten Djokovic at Monte Carlo and Cincinatti. I don't believe his game is good enough to beat Djokovic in a Slam, but he can seriously tire him out.
Meanwhile, the winner of Federer and Nadal will be relatively fresh, even if it goes to 5 sets. Federer has always been an ultra attacking player, while Nadal's new aggressive style will mean neither player gets particularly tired.

A fresh winner of Federer vs Nadal vs a tired Djokovic... I believe it could be game on. Djokovic rather than adapting his game like Nadal was forced to, seems to be content on being a slightly more efficient version of Medvedev. Could it cost him?

Nadal's finished on hc and grass unless he gets peach draws.  Simple.

Well he's been written off many times before, this wouldn't be the first time he's proved a Nadal hater wrong.

BEL19VE wrote:Well he's been written off many times before, this wouldn't be the first time he's proved a Nadal hater wrong.

No he hasn't Mr. Nadal butt-wiper. Nadal has precisely proved what your 'Nadal haters' have been saying. Every time on Grass or HC he meets someone who could beat him, he loses.

His Last 2 USopen slams have so much been favoured by the draw completely opening up. The 1st time finalist Medvedev took him to 5 after being 0-2 sets down. In 2017 he met the first time finalist serve only Anderson.  


So while you are orgasming about Nadal's USopen win, don't forget the reality.

Daniel2 wrote:Nadal's finished on hc and grass unless he gets peach draws.  Simple.

Even Dimi won a Masters and WTF. This peach draws as its opens up is no ordinary thing.

4 USOPEN

indeed, orgasmic

Of course it will be the draw. Decade ago we would weigh up who would get Djokovic and who would get Murray. Now it's who can avoid Djokovic. 

It's even more difficult to see who could be the bumps in the draw for the Big 3 given how inconsistent the rest of the field really are.

naxroy wrote:4 USOPEN

indeed, orgasmic

Yes, good on you too. But just don't forget the reality.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

BEL19VE wrote:Well he's been written off many times before, this wouldn't be the first time he's proved a Nadal hater wrong.

No he hasn't Mr. Nadal butt-wiper. Nadal has precisely proved what your 'Nadal haters' have been saying. Every time on Grass or HC he meets someone who could beat him, he loses.

His Last 2 USopen slams have so much been favoured by the draw completely opening up. The 1st time finalist Medvedev took him to 5 after being 0-2 sets down. In 2017 he met the first time finalist serve only Anderson.  


So while you are orgasming about Nadal's USopen win, don't forget the reality.

I implore you to remember that whilst this binning of Nadal USO wins because "the draw opened up" don't forget Feds FO 2009 and Wim 2017 and how those draws opened up. Similar with Djokovic's Wimbledon and USO's 2018 respectively. 

So do bear in mind that reality. It's swings and roundabouts. Draws open up favourably. Some take advantage, some don't...

Yeah some of Sampras’ draws at Wimbledon were fairly hilarious and, unpalatable though it is on here, Roger had a few years where his competition off clay was less than stellar. If you are going to rack up large numbers of slams, you are going to get a few “easy” draws along the way.

legendkillar wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

BEL19VE wrote:Well he's been written off many times before, this wouldn't be the first time he's proved a Nadal hater wrong.

No he hasn't Mr. Nadal butt-wiper. Nadal has precisely proved what your 'Nadal haters' have been saying. Every time on Grass or HC he meets someone who could beat him, he loses.

His Last 2 USopen slams have so much been favoured by the draw completely opening up. The 1st time finalist Medvedev took him to 5 after being 0-2 sets down. In 2017 he met the first time finalist serve only Anderson.  


So while you are orgasming about Nadal's USopen win, don't forget the reality.

I implore you to remember that whilst this binning of Nadal USO wins because "the draw opened up" don't forget Feds FO 2009 and Wim 2017 and how those draws opened up. Similar with Djokovic's Wimbledon and USO's 2018 respectively. 

So do bear in mind that reality. It's swings and roundabouts. Draws open up favourably. Some take advantage, some don't...

Thanks for the common sense

Legendkillar wrote:I implore you to remember that whilst this binning of Nadal USO wins because "the draw opened up" don't forget Feds FO 2009 and Wim 2017 and how those draws opened up. Similar with Djokovic's Wimbledon and USO's 2018 respectively. 

So do bear in mind that reality. It's swings and roundabouts. Draws open up favourably. Some take advantage, some don't...

Of course, I do. Bring me any time I've said anything opposite. I have always said that if someone plays long enough and gives themselves enough chances for slams, they will get favours from opening draws. Fed Nadal, Djokovic give themselves enough chances to have some favourable draws working for them.

But Nadal butt-kissers start rubbing these in the face saying shit like Nadal has proved his haters wrong. And that's' when they need a reality check.

It was completely Nadal's slam to lose even before the QFs were done. And he didn't let lose this chance.

I have also said that this is where Fed has screwed up many slam chances which Nadal/Djoko haven't. So credit to them.

I find this a bit odd really - they were all in the draw to start, Nadal won and that's kind of it really.  Look at all the big-time slam winners and this stuff tends to even itself out in the end.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed that Fed fell by the way with a back injury and that Nadal added another to his tally, but it's a bit duff to groan about the mechanics of it.

I don't remember the last time Fed had a run ina  slam as easy as Nadal has had at at least 2 US OPens now.  If you dispute that, there's no hope for you.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Legendkillar wrote:I implore you to remember that whilst this binning of Nadal USO wins because "the draw opened up" don't forget Feds FO 2009 and Wim 2017 and how those draws opened up. Similar with Djokovic's Wimbledon and USO's 2018 respectively. 

So do bear in mind that reality. It's swings and roundabouts. Draws open up favourably. Some take advantage, some don't...

Of course, I do. Bring me any time I've said anything opposite. I have always said that if someone plays long enough and gives themselves enough chances for slams, they will get favours from opening draws. Fed Nadal, Djokovic give themselves enough chances to have some favourable draws working for them.

But Nadal butt-kissers start rubbing these in the face saying shit like Nadal has proved his haters wrong. And that's' when they need a reality check.

It was completely Nadal's slam to lose even before the QFs were done. And he didn't let lose this chance.

I have also said that this is where Fed has screwed up many slam chances which Nadal/Djoko haven't. So credit to them.

And I accept that.

For me I think Nadal fans seeks the same praise and adulation for Nadal's success at Slam which is similar to that of say Federer. Say with Wimbledon 2017. Relatively easy path, but lots of praise and no mention of the draw as per se. 

You call it butt kissing, I think of it as them seeking acknowledgement. 

There's only 2 Slams I can think of where Fed stuffed it. USO 2014 and Wim this year. Other than that he has been quite clinical.

I never claimed Nadal had a hard draw in this USO. And in USO 2017 the only hard opponent was Del Potro.

At the same time he’s been on the brink twice (few points away basically) in AO 2017 final and Wimb 2018 SF.
So given those very close losses, I’m happy to accept a couple of easier draws.

Daniel2 wrote:I don't remember the last time Fed had a run in a slam as easy as Nadal has had at at least 2 US OPens now.  If you dispute that, there's no hope for you.

Federer's last 2 slams he won weren't very tough competition.
Wimbledon 2017 he faced Berdych then Cilic. AO 2018 he faced injured Chung then Cilic.
Cilic in my opinion is probably easier than Del Potro but harder than Medvedev. Also we must be consistent. When Federer lost to Anderson in W2018, he was a very hard draw, but a year before that he was easy opponent for Nadal in USO. When Nadal drew Cilic in AO QF 2018 he was apparently an easy draw, but became tough for Fed when he reached the final later that week.

I dont think it was a very easy draw, the draw actually was average, it just oppened up a bit for semis

I think the final opponent was quite decent (number 4, finalist in canada and winner in cincinnati, who had defeated wawrinka and dimitrov who had defeated novak and roger)

barrystar wrote:I find this a bit odd really - they were all in the draw to start, Nadal won and that's kind of it really.  Look at all the big-time slam winners and this stuff tends to even itself out in the end.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed that Fed fell by the way with a back injury and that Nadal added another to his tally, but it's a bit duff to groan about the mechanics of it.

If we don't talk about the mechanics, then what else do we do here in this forum Barry? The score-line is for all to see and that's if that's what only count, then there is nothing left to talk/discuss/debate at all.

Daniel's point is correct that unless the draw opens up, Nadal doesn't win any slam on HC/Grass. The last time he actually did was in USopen 2013. He has played multiple HC slams and lost all of those unless he got complete help from draw like in 2017, 2019.   

So whom has Nadal proven wrong as his deluded Nadal butt-kissing fan amritia was trying to rub on everyone's face. Nadal has only proven them right, and him delusional.

BEL19VE wrote:I never claimed Nadal had a hard draw in this USO. And in USO 2017 the only hard opponent was Del Potro.

At the same time he’s been on the brink twice (few points away basically) in AO 2017 final and Wimb 2018 SF.
So given those very close losses, I’m happy to accept a couple of easier draws.

Who is talking about draw? Learn how to stick to point of HC/Grass made by Daniel. You said Nadal has proved his haters wrong. Bull+shit -> On U

It is obvious Nadal has proven his haters wrong.

About being only a claycourter and about short career predictions.

Of course clay is his kingdom, he is the absolute best ever on clay, but also good grasscourter in the first half of his career (5 Wimbledon finals 2006-2011) and excellent hardcourter in the last decade (10 slam finals since 2009)

About short career, he is actually breaking records in terms of longevity. 5 slams after turning 30.

Haters can debate about draws, surfaces, cheating... Its funny and part of the great joy of reading this forum.

There's some conflation going on here.

Daniel only proposition is that Nadal is done on HC & Wimbledon if he plays a tough player and he cites recent US Open wins as corroboration, not as contradiction because Rafa did indeed avoid such opponent. Had a fit Federer made the final I would have been so confident |I would have even been able to watch the match! 

He is not saying he didn't win these things, and he's not saying Federer hasn't also had some easy draws (W17 being a good example) but equally nobody thinks Federer can only win Wimbledon with an easy draw; the staggering achievement this year would kill that idea off. Daniel is saying Nadal could not do this and there's no evidence at all available to contradict him.

As for long career, that's entirely down to medical advances. Without stem cell treatment and the rest he'd have retired many years ago, just as Lendl et al had to succumb to their conditions.

Nadal wins a slam and their fans start suffering from hysteria. The same hysteria that caused nitb to leave the forum. 

So stop calling/labelling others as nadal haters. Else Bull+shit -> On U 2.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Nadal wins a slam and their fans start suffering from hysteria. The same hysteria that caused nitb to leave the forum. 

So stop calling/labelling others as nadal haters. Else Bull+shit -> On U 2.

there are nadal haters, they exist. But I dont recall labelling anyone in this forum as such.

not in the later weeks at least

bogbrush wrote:There's some conflation going on here.

Daniel only proposition is that Nadal is done on HC & Wimbledon if he plays a tough player and he cites recent US Open wins as corroboration, not as contradiction because Rafa did indeed avoid such opponent. Had a fit Federer made the final I would have been so confident |I would have even been able to watch the match! 

He is not saying he didn't win these things, and he's not saying Federer hasn't also had some easy draws (W17 being a good example) but equally nobody thinks Federer can only win Wimbledon with an easy draw; the staggering achievement this year would kill that idea off. Daniel is saying Nadal could not do this and there's no evidence at all available to contradict him.

As for long career, that's entirely down to medical advances. Without stem cell treatment and the rest he'd have retired many years ago, just as Lendl et al had to succumb to their conditions.

Depends on what you define as a "tough player" because the forum bemoans such players when they don't prove to be the "tough player" that the forum expects. Recent discussions have essentially concluded Djokovic being the only tough player that could halt Nadal in his tracks at a Slam.  

You would make Federer favourite for the US Open Final against Nadal? Have to say I wouldn't be that confident! More so given this decade Nadal's form at the USO is far superior to Federer's. 

I am with barry's view. Seems too much of a desperation from would be Federer legacy protectors to crap on Nadal's achievements.

bogbrush wrote:Daniel only proposition is that Nadal is done on HC & Wimbledon if he plays a tough player and he cites recent US Open wins as corroboration, not as contradiction because Rafa did indeed avoid such opponent.
Daniel is saying Nadal could not do this and there's no evidence at all available to contradict him.

What about Wimbledon 2018? Nadal in the semi final against Djokovic got to 5th set 4-4 15-40 with two break points to serve for the match. And he had had 4 set points in the 3rd set TB which he lost. Perhaps one can argue Nadal has declined since then, but it's only 13 months ago so a fairly recent example.

bogbrush wrote:Had a fit Federer made the final I would have been so confident I would have even been able to watch the match! 

Won't spend much time arguing this, as it's a hypothetical, but when Djokovic went out and Federer was still in the tournament (had just thrashed Goffin), Nadal was significant bookies' favourite.
At USO conditions and BO5, I think Nadal would have slight edge over Fed, but of course it's tough to call.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Nadal wins a slam and their fans start suffering from hysteria. The same hysteria that caused nitb to leave the forum. 

So stop calling/labelling others as nadal haters. Else Bull+shit -> On U 2.

What on earth are you talking about? I've done nothing remotely similar to what NITB did in the immediate aftermath of Djokovic beating Federer.
I wrote a thread saying that I believe both Federer and Nadal can add to their slam tally, and during the thread said Nadal got a comfortable draw in USO. I've been the opposite of hysterical.

As for me 'name-calling' people as Nadal haters. Daniel himself has said he hates Nadal. QED
I'm fine with the tough nature of this forum, but take note that you without personal provocation in your first post on this thread addressed me as Mr. Nadal butt-wiper. Which is amusing I guess, but a bit hypocritical for you to later rant that you're upset I labelled Daniel a Nadal hater.

Bookies only reflect punters and most of them are stupid.

Off clay a fit Federer has a game plan that Nadal struggles to oppose. The old tactics of 15 years of hammering the backhand is obsolete.

bogbrush wrote:Bookies only reflect punters and most of them are stupid.

Off clay a fit Federer has a game plan that Nadal struggles to oppose. The old tactics of 15 years of hammering the backhand is obsolete.

Perhaps you're right. I'd have Nadal as marginal favourite if that match up happened. The conditions at Wimbledon this year were slow and very low bouncing (in fact they did hawkeye analysis and showed the ball was signficantly bouncing lower at Wimbledon this year compared to recent years), this doesn't suit Rafa.
USO is probably slightly faster than Wimb, but more importantly for Nadal a lot higher bouncing. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

bogbrush wrote:Bookies only reflect punters and most of them are stupid.

Off clay a fit Federer has a game plan that Nadal struggles to oppose. The old tactics of 15 years of hammering the backhand is obsolete.

I'd argue on Clay he has game plan to beat Nadal too. The recent FO encounter was fascinating as it was BH vs BH (large in part to the conditions) and Nadal's was ridiculously flat (cross court for sure) and that overwhelmed Federer's.

I would give Nadal the slight edge at the USO for what Amrit mentioned, the bounce favours Nadal's game.

BEL19VE wrote:

I'm fine with the tough nature of this forum, but take note that you without personal provocation in your first post on this thread addressed me as Mr. Nadal butt-wiper. Which is amusing I guess, but a bit hypocritical for you to later rant that you're upset I labelled Daniel a Nadal hater.

this is pure gold

bogbrush wrote:Off clay a fit Federer has a game plan that Nadal struggles to oppose.

With Federer 38 and seemingly fragile, I am betting on Nole recovering to win AO and RG next year, then Rafa needs to lose to someone - anyone - at Wimbledon and by the USO Medvedev (or someone else) can hopefully perfect their game to finally make a youngster breakthrough.  And by 2021 Rafa will hopefully be declining enough that slams will dry up.

Or else we are in for a depressing 2020.

naxroy wrote:I dont think it was a very easy draw, the draw actually was average, it just oppened up a bit for semis

I agree with this - I was also trying to make this point throughout the tournament.  Medvedev was for all practical purposes the second best player in the draw, and Rafa beat him.  Healthy Nole and healthy Fed might have been more difficult, but neither was in the tournament.

Other than SF, Rafa's draw was perfectly reasonable - I would even say prior to SF even a bit harder than average.

You're dreaming if you think that draw wasn't easy.  It fell for Nadal as well as it could do.  It's shocking how many seeds he avoids.  Even mathematically your argument is dead.
And some of you making Nadal favourite on HC these days against Federer- even an aged Federer...  after all the beatings he's given Nadal is hilarious.

Luckily for Nadal fans, Fed is bit physically impaired at the moment, much older in tennis terms, and keeps getting tougher draws than that narcissistic, cheating little cunt.

After 16 years, we nadal fans are ok with his h2h against roger.

naxroy wrote:After 16 years, we nadal fans are ok with his h2h against roger.

So is everyone else.

Back to OP: Sure they can, but since there are 3 genuine contenders for Slams, the draw/path makes a big difference. If one has to beat both the other-2 to win, this is highly unlikely to happen. Fed came as close as it can get, but still not over the line.

Nadal in last 5 of his slams victories, he hasn't beaten either Fed( except RG19 clay which stacks are too favouring for Nadal and Fed doesn't play clay these days) or Djoko. Quite the opposite, He has lost to them every time he has met them in the last 4-5 years(?). So for all his recent slam trophies, he didn't have to beat either Fed or Djoko or both.  This says a lot how draw opening have favoured him.

So is the case with Djoko, he hasn't beaten Both Nadal and Fed for any of is last many slams. Mostly he didn't have to, coz either or both would lose before meeting him.

In last 7 of Nadal's slam finals, he has 5 wins and 2 loses. Both his loses are when he met Fed once ( AO17) and Djoko( AO19). He has also lost to them in SF if met.

Out of those 5 slam wins, 3 of those finals his opponent was a first-time finalist. Big advantage for an experienced player like Nadal.

The other 2 occasions he had beaten Theim 2019 RG and Wawrinka 2017 RG. Both thiem and Wawrinka will be underdogs against Nadal on RG clay.

Bottom line, Nadal has been extremely lucky with the draw opening up in his last 5 slam wins.

If Fed gets this kind of path to slams, maybe he can win too. Or not. Coz he has screwed som real good chances. This is where credit to Nadal, he didn't screw any chance to add to his tally.

I agree with a lot of that actually.  
Nadal has declined with age, as we'd expect for a player who has a gamestyle based on quick speed, who has then lost a lot of speed.

However, given I don't think he's even near his best, I don't really care about the level of player he beats, but am very happy with every added Slam.

ROTLA wrote:So for all his recent slam trophies, he didn't have to beat either Fed or Djoko or both.

This is actually a really good metric for making judgements, and let me use it for their whole careers:
Beating one or two of the other 'big 3' during Grand Slam wins-
Nadal 13/19
Djokovic 12/16
Federer 7/20

Of course it's not a perfect measurement tool, as they are from different generations. Djokovic got most of his wins against Fed to win Slams when the Swiss was 33+. Meanwhile 4 of Federer's 7 wins comes from 2006 and 2007 when he beat a very young Djokovic and Nadal.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:


So is the case with Djoko, he hasn't beaten Both Nadal and Fed for any of is last many slams. Mostly he didn't have to, coz either or both would lose before meeting him.

In the same way, Nadal avoided djoko in semis or finals cos novak didnt get there (thiem quarters 2017, cechinatto quarters 2018, thiem semis 2019, wawrinka r4 2019), and he avoided Roger at usopen cos roger  didnt get there (robredo, delpotro, dimitrov)

I would even say ...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Bottom line, Nadal has been extremely, extremely, lucky with the draw opening up in his last 5 slam wins.

...When considering all other parameters.

naxroy wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:


So is the case with Djoko, he hasn't beaten Both Nadal and Fed for any of is last many slams. Mostly he didn't have to, coz either or both would lose before meeting him.

In the same way, Nadal avoided djoko in semis or finals cos novak didnt get there (thiem quarters 2017, cechinatto quarters 2018, thiem semis 2019, wawrinka r4 2019), and he avoided Roger at usopen cos roger  didnt get there (robredo, delpotro, dimitrov)

You deliberately missed the point.

Djoko doesn't need to avoid Nadal or even Fed (mostly in Slams). He beats both of them and doing so for many of thier last meetings. So Fed or Nadal dropping off before Djoko meets them has no significance to Djoko's slam results.

Fed's slam results of the last 5 years have been highly affected by having to cross Djoko which he hasn't been able to. But he has beaten Nadal 2 times on HC and Grass. So Fed's slam results may not be afected by Nadal's presence or absence to meet him. But definitely Djoko.

Now for Nadal. Unless he doesn't have to beat either of them, he doesn't win slams. Each time he had to cross them over, he loses. So his results are highly affected by Djoko and Fed dropping off before meeting Nadal.

I am not so sure about nadal losing to djokovic in RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 had they met, but that simply didnt come to pass.

There is no easy slam. Winning a slam is so hard, that since slams exist, only 150 male players have won at least one, and Nadal is second in history with 19.

I understand you need to minimize his achievement, talking about ifs and woulds, but it is ok for me, a slam is a slam

and 19 is huge, legend of the sport

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Just sit back, relax and appreciate what an amazing athlete Nadal is.
..

This is what I wrote in a very recent thread started by Tenez. Do you think I am here to minimize his achievements?

I'm only stating possibilities, which are backed by recent facts/results. Nothing more. 

I can't blame a guy for being lucky. 100s of people have won millions of $$$ by just a piece of a paper they bought.

This is how the world works. Nadal can only beat who gets to beat. And this is 3rd time I'm saying that credit to Nadal that he didn't screw up any chance for a slam. Something that both Fed and Djoko have done on multiple occasions.

ROTLA, I do appreciate you are trying to analyse rather than minimise achievements. Fair enough.

3 points. Firstly if we take your metric, Nadal has won more Slams facing fellow members of the big 3 than Djokovic and Fed. This may be a generational issue, but bear it in mind.
Secondly, Nadal has been very close in recent years in AO 2017 and Wimb 2018. It's true Fed got to 40-15 match point this year, but in 2018 final Nadal had 15-40 at 4-4 on Djokovic serve 5th set. Of course at the end of the day there is only one winner, but it's a bit harsh to make future assumptions on the basis of matches like these.

And lastly, I wouldn't extrapolate what would have happened in FO & USO based on what happened at AO & Wimby. In the former 2 slams Nadal is very comfortable with the conditions and is extremely tough to beat. Given Djokovic has lost vs Thiem at FO, I think Nadal would have beaten Djokovic in 2017-2019 if they had played in Paris.
USO is a bit harder, I already argued this with Bogbrush on the other thread, that I'd marginally fancy Nadal's chances against Fed... with Djokovic it depends on which side of bed he's woken up on (huge inconsistencies from him this year).

going back to OP

Can Federer win another slam?
Can nadal win another slam?

what did we think in late 2016? 

no, I wont make the same mistake again, I wont say they cannot win another slam

Fed said he will play up to Wimbledon and still thinking will he play Tokyo, whichsure he will due to Uniqlo and $30M a year.

So he has another 3 GS to play.

Jahu wrote:Fed said he will play up to Wimbledon and still thinking will he play Tokyo, whichsure he will due to Uniqlo and $30M a year.

So he has another 3 GS to play.

It does sound like he may call it a day next year  though I hope not.

summerblues wrote:

Jahu wrote:Fed said he will play up to Wimbledon and still thinking will he play Tokyo, whichsure he will due to Uniqlo and $30M a year.

So he has another 3 GS to play.

It does sound like he may call it a day next year  though I hope not.

I think he is at peace with himself now. Just enjoy the times he is healthy enough to play, maybe add 8 more titles to get to 110 and top that list.