Will Nadal pass Federer?

[GameSetAndMath]

Obviously, we are talking about GS count. I found the following article on the
web. It was written on Rafa's birthday this year, before he won this year's French Open.
Nonetheless, the methodlogy behind the analysis done there seems sound.
As per the analysis, Rafa has just 21.5% chances of surpassing Fed and
17.3% chances of tieing Fed. But, there is an overwhelming 61.2% chance of
Fed staying ahead in the end.

Here is the detailed analysis The basic methodology uses the distribution
of ages of slam winner (Dudesque) while taking into account that Roger and Rafa are
not ordinary players (uses a multiplying factor for their greatness). Have fun.

p.s. Warning: It uses joint probability distribution and binomial theorem to boot.

 

[lacatch]

Uh oh---getting the smelling salts for Moxie

 

[Moxie]

But if you make it simple, Rafa is essentially on track with Roger, just between the two of them. Roger won his 14th at RG, in 09, just 2 ½ months shy of his 28th, and Rafa won his 14th just a couple of days after his 28th birthday. And recent history tells us that the more mature players are doing better than the youngsters. It's hard to know the answer to your question, but I'd say he's "on track."

 

[DarthFed]

He won his 15th just before turning 28 too.

I don't think there is any doubt Rafa hits at least 17. The only doubt is if he were to suffer a career ending injury. He will get at least 3 more RG's. Even at a much lower level than he used to have there it is only 1 player who is the slightest challenge for the foreseeable future.

And this is why I've mentioned before that people who talk about how "well" Roger aged or how "well" he has dealt with fatherhood are not looking at things clearly. Roger's done relatively poor since age 28.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As I said in the OP, this was written before Rafa got his 14th. I guess if you use the
same methodology and calculated it after the FO victory, the percentages (for
Roger staying ahead in the end) would have gone down quite a bit (may be to 54 from 61).
This is because not only Rafa added 1 slam, his greatness coefficient (the multiplying factor)
would also have become bigger and therefore the estimate for the future slams would be
bigger. I am not exactly inclined to rework the numbers though.

Contrary to the provocative title, this article is not biased or has a specific agenda.
Also, while we might be bored to hear too often the age based analysis (a la
Dude style), this article takes it to the next level and uses it to meaningfully
scientifically assign probabilities for each player winning various number of
slams.

If you don't have patience to read through the whole article, I would suggest
that you inspect the second graphic in it. That tells the conclusion in a nutshell.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

He won his 15th just before turning 28 too.

That is a crucial point. That is why it is not 50-50 right now using the
methodology in the article.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, but it's also comparing guys that never got anywhere near 10-13 majors, as well, so how does that help? Anyway, it gives Rafa a chance at 16.48 Majors, and this before he'd won his 14, as you say, so I guess that it would put him higher. I guess it would depend where he falls on the side of the decimal point. Still, it doesn't tell us the answer. As I said. And Darth does. If he stays healthy, I say he passes 17.

 

[shawnbm]

I will stick by my prediction from last year that Nadal wins only the French this year. If he does not repeat there next year, then there may be some teeth to the argument he does not tie Fed. I don't see the hard or grass court majors getting any easier for Nadal barring some breaks like Roger had in London. IMHO he has dropped off quite a bit from his incredible year last year and some younger lions are taking it to him more than before. He will always be more at risk of losing against big serving, heavy hitting power guys on faster courts.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I disagree and agree with Moxie.. My thoughts are the following:

As long as Rafa is still by far the top threat at RG, His chances are greater than having a 21% chance of tying and passing Roger. Since 2009, Wimbledon 2014 was the first grandslam since 2009 where the name Nadal or Murray wasnt part of the championship finals.

With that being said, the probabilty of Rafa making another run like he did last Summer is still pretty good because his major threat is still Novak not Federer. I think we would be having a different conversation had Rafa secured the AO title but he didnt. Let's revisit this next year because as long as Rafa is still winning a grand slam every year since 2005, he has a very good opportunity.

If Rafael has another 12 months where he reaches 3 of 4 grand slams finals, I like his chances.. wouldn't you agree.:angel:

 

[Front242]

The spread will diminish it greatly though if he say wins 4 more French Opens and nothing else. I mean it'd still be 18 slams but 2 + 2 of 2 different slams or 1 of each slam is better than 4 more at RG. Anyway, I'm quite sure he'll win on surfaces besides RG before all is said and done but just saying, there's a commonly held opinion that winning 4 more French Opens would be less impressive than a better spread upon other surfaces.

 

[Front242]

^ Actually very much looking forward to the US Open next month and have no idea who'll win.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The spread will diminish it greatly though if he say wins 4 more French Opens and nothing else. I mean it'd still be 18 slams but 2 + 2 of 2 different slams or 1 of each slam is better than 4 more at RG. Anyway, I'm quite sure he'll win on surfaces besides RG before all is said and done but just saying, there's a commonly held opinion that winning 4 more French Opens would be less impressive than a better spread upon other surfaces.

That's the mentality of some Fed's fans but not the entire tennis community. Rafa's H2H dominance over majority of the current ATP and the top players of past decade will be the primary reason he will probably be consider the all time greatest player.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I have thought for a fair while since about sept 2012 now that rafa will also finish with 17 majors like Federer, (unbelievable knee pain allowing, no ?)... but after federers Wimbledon final maybe he can sneak an 18th..

..so umm..if that's the case. erm, I cannot decide just now :huh:..screw that, 17-17 it will be.

 

[El Dude]

That's what happens when you get a software guy and "data enthusiast" writing statistical articles - I can't compete

Anyhow, I think the most likely scenario is 17 and 17. I'd probably give Roger a 30% chance of winning an 18th Slam. I'd give Rafa a 90% chance of winning at least one more (15), 70% chance two more (16), 50% three more (17), 30% four more (18), 10% five more (19), and 5% six or more (20+). Or something like that. Nothing scientific, just eye-balling it.

If Rafa wins either the US Open or 2015 Australian Open, his chances go up drastically. If he wins neither, they go down a bit; if he loses the 2015 French Open, they plummet.

 

[tented]

Right on cue, here's this from today's Bleacher Report:

"Rafael Nadal Should Equal Roger Federer's Slam Mark in 2016"

 

[Moxie]

I have thought for a fair while since about sept 2012 now that rafa will also finish with 17 majors like Federer, (unbelievable knee pain allowing, no ?)... but after federers Wimbledon final maybe he can sneak an 18th..

..so umm..if that's the case. erm, I cannot decide just now :huh:..screw that, 17-17 it will be.

Honestly, since Rafa was at about 10 or 11, I've thought that he and Roger might finish tied. I think there's a good chance, now. And I kind of like the poetry of that. Because, let's face it…the conversation about them will go on forever, even if Nadal ends one up or one down, or tied…or, frankly, from now. Their legacies are joined at the hip, and they will be in each others' obituaries. It is what it is. So a tie would be kind of beautiful.

 

[atttomole]

Yes, he will pass Federer. Mostly likely in 2016. As other Fed fans have said before, Federer left some slams on the table, and they will be significant when all is said and done.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's what happens when you get a software guy and "data enthusiast" writing statistical articles - I can't compete

Anyhow, I think the most likely scenario is 17 and 17. I'd probably give Roger a 30% chance of winning an 18th Slam. I'd give Rafa a 90% chance of winning at least one more (15), 70% chance two more (16), 50% three more (17), 30% four more (18), 10% five more (19), and 5% six or more (20+). Or something like that. Nothing scientific, just eye-balling it.

If Rafa wins either the US Open or 2015 Australian Open, his chances go up drastically. If he wins neither, they go down a bit; if he loses the 2015 French Open, they plummet.

You can give whatever chances, you want to as you are entitled to have an
opinion. The chances for Roger and Rafa reaching different number of GS totals
given in the article are not the opinions of the author. They are calculated based
on sound methodology. You have already admitted that in your post. My purpose
here is not to criticize you or to devalue your opinion. I just want to make sure
that unsuspecting readers do not assume that the probabilites given in the articles
are opinions like that of yours or that of some one else, commenting here.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Right on cue, here's this from today's Bleacher Report:

"Rafael Nadal Should Equal Roger Federer's Slam Mark in 2016"

This is funny article and the estimates here are pure speculation with no basis.
For example it says Based on this history, it's completely plausible that Nadal could come up with three major victories in the next nine events. In the previous nine, Nadal has eerily also claimed three . This completely disregards the age effect and hence really has no basis.
The prediction for future performance cannot be the same as past. This is like saying: Fed won 13 slams in the last 10 years and so we can expect him to win 13 slams in the next 10 years.
Most people immediately recognize how ridiculuos the above statement is. The italicized statement
is also as ridiculous as the underlined statement.

I find most of the bleacher articles to be very cursory and written by quacks who
just want to write something.

 

[Moxie]

That's what happens when you get a software guy and "data enthusiast" writing statistical articles - I can't compete

Anyhow, I think the most likely scenario is 17 and 17. I'd probably give Roger a 30% chance of winning an 18th Slam. I'd give Rafa a 90% chance of winning at least one more (15), 70% chance two more (16), 50% three more (17), 30% four more (18), 10% five more (19), and 5% six or more (20+). Or something like that. Nothing scientific, just eye-balling it.

If Rafa wins either the US Open or 2015 Australian Open, his chances go up drastically. If he wins neither, they go down a bit; if he loses the 2015 French Open, they plummet.

You can give whatever chances, you want to as you are entitled to have an
opinion. The chances for Roger and Rafa reaching different number of GS totals
given in the article are not the opinions of the author. They are calculated based
on sound methodology. You have already admitted that in your post. My purpose
here is not to criticize you or to devalue your opinion. I just want to make sure
that unsuspecting readers do not assume that the probabilites given in the articles
are opinions like that of yours or that of some one else, commenting here.

So, in the end, though, stats and probability don't tell us what's going to happen, right? Predictors of the future, but with no certainty. Good fun, as far as it goes.