Will Nadal pass Federer?

[Correspondent Kiu]

I just don't see Rafa winning 3 more. Even 3 more FO crowns.
At this point, I don't see Fed winning any more either.
Rafa will end up with 15-16, me thinks.
But hey, I've been wrong before.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

I don't see him winning 4 in the next 2 years. The thing is that he could easily still be winning RG's at age 32 or 33. That major is all about his topspin. The incredible movement and defense is just icing on the cake for him. As long as the rally forehand is still kicking up high he will have very few competitors to deal with.

And yes, Roger has left more than a few slams on the table with really bad unclutch play in the big matches.

 

[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.

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.

Of course, nobody can predict future.

That does not mean all predictions are equally reasonable or anything goes.

It is precisely for the purpose of taming the uncertainity that probability theory was developed.

 

[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.

Of course, nobody can predict future.

That does not mean all predictions are equally reasonable or anything goes.

It is precisely for the purpose of taming the uncertainity that probability theory was developed.

Yes, and yours seems as reasonable as El Dude's. But let's not kid ourselves that we're really "taming uncertainty" here. That was part of my point earlier in this thread about being beyond the realm of statistics. And I've made the same point about Nadal and the French Open. Just because something has been done rarely, or never, doesn't mean it can't be done. I think Federer and Sampras and Nadal have launched us off into a place where grading by those in the past makes the curve irrelevant. Will Nadal catch Federer? Who knows? Will Nadal actually get 10 French Open titles? Who knows? At this point, I don't give a fig for your statistics, because I think we've wandered into unknown territory. And I say that with all respect, but does it really matter how old John McEnroe was when he won his last Major, at this refined altitude?

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Its sounds good to think of them tied but Not for this Rafa fan. The Fed fans will just speak of Roger's longevity, Roger got to 18 titles 1st , Roger's ability to have his grand Slams titles spread out, effortless of his game and blah,, blah blah.. Rafa would still be considered as second fiddle.. Rafa has to get to 18 GS titles to end the argument of who is the GOAT.

 

[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.

Its sounds good to think of them tied but Not for this Rafa fan. The Fed fans will just speak of Roger's longevity, Roger got to 18 titles 1st , Roger's ability to have his grand Slams titles spread out, effortless of his game and blah,, blah blah.. Rafa would still be considered as second fiddle.. Rafa has to get to 18 GS titles to end the argument of who is the GOAT.

A-P, 18 GS titles won't end the argument. And for the Fedfans, Rafa will always be second-fiddle. However, 18 might seal it for some sportswriters, which would be sweet. But for fans, the argument will never be over.

And, for me, for the record…there is no GOAT. Even if Rafa gets 18 or 20.

 

[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.

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.

Of course, nobody can predict future.

That does not mean all predictions are equally reasonable or anything goes.

It is precisely for the purpose of taming the uncertainity that probability theory was developed.

Yes, and yours seems as reasonable as El Dude's. But let's not kid ourselves that we're really "taming uncertainty" here. That was part of my point earlier in this thread about being beyond the realm of statistics. And I've made the same point about Nadal and the French Open. Just because something has been done rarely, or never, doesn't mean it can't be done. I think Federer and Sampras and Nadal have launched us off into a place where grading by those in the past makes the curve irrelevant. Will Nadal catch Federer? Who knows? Will Nadal actually get 10 French Open titles? Who knows? At this point, I don't give a fig for your statistics, because I think we've wandered into unknown territory. And I say that with all respect, but does it really matter how old John McEnroe was when he won his last Major, at this refined altitude?

First of all, "it" is not mine. I don't want to be seen as taking credit for the beautiful
analysis done by the author of that article.

Second, you don't seem to get it. See the bolded comment in your previous post included
here. When the weather forecaster says tomorrow it is likely to rain, that is a prediction
with no certainity. That does not mean the forecast does not have value. I am sure
that you do watch weather forecast and take it seriously or do you say it is "good fun"?
The fact that something cannot be predicted with certainity does not make predictions
meaningless or devoid of value. The whole taming of uncertainity is about quantifying
the chances of some event happening despite being able to say for sure.

The weather forecast is based on so much past information and pattern analysis.
One might ask what does tomorrow's weather got to do with the weather on the same
day in 1947. But, that also plays a role in the prediction of tomorrow's weather. Likewise
McEnroe's age when he got a slam is a meaningful data in this prediction.

Finally, with respect to Roger and Rafa achieving great things which have never
been achieved, that greatness has been factored into the calculation by means of
the greatness coefficient. The article is not projecting the future slams of Rafa or
Roger just based on other medicore player's results in old age. It does give allowance
for the fact that since Roger and Rafa are great, they are more likely to do great
things even at old age when compared to mortal folks.

Just a few more figs for you to not care. :snigger

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One thing to note from the analysis: The expected value of the total number of
slams for Roger in his career is 17.75 and the expected value of the total number of
slams for Rafa in his career is 16.48. By linearity of expectation, the expected
value of (Roger's GS count - Rafa's GS count) = 17.75 -16.48 = 1.27 > 1.
So, basically the prediction is that when the dust settles Fed's GS count will be
likely to be one more than Rafa's GS count.

I am sure there will be a post wondering how do you win .75 slams and .48 slams.
Let me remind you that these are expected values. For example, if you predict that
Fed will be stuck at 17 with a 60% chance and will get 18 with 40% chance and will
definitely not get more than 18, then you are saying that the expected value of
his GS count is 17.4 as 17*0.6 + 18 *0.4 = 17.4. Very informally speaking,
you can think of the expected value as the prediction with full certainity.
This may help folks to understand the analysis even better.

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Its sounds good to think of them tied but Not for this Rafa fan. The Fed fans will just speak of Roger's longevity, Roger got to 18 titles 1st , Roger's ability to have his grand Slams titles spread out, effortless of his game and blah,, blah blah.. Rafa would still be considered as second fiddle.. Rafa has to get to 18 GS titles to end the argument of who is the GOAT.

Roger's lack of longevity is the problem. He was a late bloomer winning his first slam just before age 22 and then by age 28 he was a complete shell of himself and has only won 2 slams since. Nadal won his first slam at age 19 and has just won one at age 28.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Of course - that should go without saying! I don't think you need to protect "unsuspecting readers" from my conjecturing on a message board! Ha ha.

I will say that part of my problem with statistical formulas for prediction is that they don't take into account the actual human being. While mine aren't based upon "sound methodology," they do include an eye for the players involved. Note also that I actually I actually give Rafa a better chance than the author, because I'm predicting with an eye for his tenacity and competitive spirit.

I agree that we are (always) in uncharted territory, and there is no reason that someone can't come along and buck the trends and win ten Slams after age 28. And maybe that person will be Rafa - it would certainly cement his status as the GOAT. But again, the historical trends give us something to go on, and I think are more valuable than the wishful thinking of fans. I try to be objective as possible and be aware of my bias as a fan of Federer, and try not to let that influence my perspective. I can tell you that while I want him to win an 18th Slam, I think the odds are against him.

 

[El Dude]

Roger's lack of longevity is the problem. He was a late bloomer winning his first slam just before age 22 and then by age 28 he was a complete shell of himself and has only won 2 slams since. Nadal won his first slam at age 19 and has just won one at age 28.

This is a bit hyperbolic, Darth. He wasn't a "complete shell of himself" at age 28, he simply was no longer in his absolute peak - like most players aren't at that age. Roger's age-related decline doesn't point to a problem of longevity; if anything, he's been able to maintain a strong plateau longer than most players.

I think your perspective is colored by just how dominant he was from 2004-07. From 2008 to the present, aside from 2013, his win percentage has been very consistent. Of course the difference between 2008-09 and 2010-14 is that he's not going as deep into Slams. Certainly he's dropped a notch, but he's still been a great player.

One way to characterize it is that from 2004-07 Roger was like an A+ student. From 2008-09 he was an A student and from 2010 to the present he's been an A- student, with the exception of 2013 when he was a B or B- student. But an A+ to A- student isn't a "shell of himself."

 

[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.

I don't see him winning 4 in the next 2 years. The thing is that he could easily still be winning RG's at age 32 or 33. That major is all about his topspin. The incredible movement and defense is just icing on the cake for him. As long as the rally forehand is still kicking up high he will have very few competitors to deal with.

And yes, Roger has left more than a few slams on the table with really bad unclutch play in the big matches.

I think that if he wins the US Open this year, he could at least equal 17 slams, assuming Federer does not sneak one in that period.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I didn't mean to single out El Dude in particular and point out that his predictions are
mere opinions. We all conjecture and should continue to do so.

However, Moxie says that El Dude's predictions are as reasonable as that of
the author of the article. However, El Dude just gave out his predictions with no
argument to support them. But, Moxie looks at those numbers and feels they
are reasonable, when in fact one can neither say it is "reasonable" nor
"unreasonable". One can say "reasonable or not" only when there is a
methodology involved and not just when numbers are thrown out.

Having said that, I am not saying that the author's article is the
"be all and end all" in meaningful scientific predictions on this issue.
Just as there are different weather models (which may predict different
courses of action for a hurricane), it is possible to have a reasonable
but different model.

In fact here is one such. Instead of looking at the age, one can
look at number of grand slams played and number of grand slams won
so far for each grandslam winner and perform a similar analysis as
done by the author of the articles (including greatness coefficient)
etc and I am sure that the results will be different. One could argue
that this is perhaps more accurate as it takes "milage" into account.
The article treats two players who have won say, 14 grand slams
by age 28 to be of same (their greatness coefficient would be same)
caliber, without taking into account how many attempts at
grandslams they made.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger's lack of longevity is the problem. He was a late bloomer winning his first slam just before age 22 and then by age 28 he was a complete shell of himself and has only won 2 slams since. Nadal won his first slam at age 19 and has just won one at age 28.

This is a bit hyperbolic, Darth. He wasn't a "complete shell of himself" at age 28, he simply was no longer in his absolute peak - like most players aren't at that age. Roger's age-related decline doesn't point to a problem of longevity; if anything, he's been able to maintain a strong plateau longer than most players.

I think your perspective is colored by just how dominant he was from 2004-07. From 2008 to the present, aside from 2013, his win percentage has been very consistent. Of course the difference between 2008-09 and 2010-14 is that he's not going as deep into Slams. Certainly he's dropped a notch, but he's still been a great player.

One way to characterize it is that from 2004-07 Roger was like an A+ student. From 2008-09 he was an A student and from 2010 to the present he's been an A- student, with the exception of 2013 when he was a B or B- student. But an A+ to A- student isn't a "shell of himself."

I don't see it as hyperbole. We are talking the difference between someone who had gone to 23 straight semis and 18 of 19 finals (winning 12 of them) to a player making barely 1/2 the semis and about 20% of the finals. That is an enormous dropoff. Of course he is still good but compared to what he was?? I think the small drop off you are thinking of is 2008 - AO 2010 compared to 04-07. After AO 2010, he was a much lesser player IMO.

 

[Kieran]

Darth, you know the guy is almost 33, right? I mean, you factor this in? Or do you think like Cali - that age isn't a factor?

 

[DarthFed]

^ I'm talking age 28 and forward though. Given who Roger is, it is fair to say many thought he'd do better in the 28-33 bracket than he did.

 

[Front242]

I agree completely. I mean if Stepanek at 35 (36 in November!) can almost extend Novak to a 5th set (he's a very good player but not Federer on grass either) then clearly Roger can clearly still beat him at 33. Stepanek never won a slam, and 33 or not, Federer has 17 of them. Age is a factor but again, older age in the case of Stepanek got the same result but in 4 sets and almost made it to 5. Given his past history and prowess on grass Federer should be well capable of holding his own to the end and winning the title. If he'd been clutch and held serve for 5-5 then maybe Novak would've eventually flinched first but I knew full well Roger would be the one to serve up a crap game first in that set. Serving 2nd in sets 4 and 5 didn't help but he screwed himself by playing such a poor 3rd set TB.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is table that lists the numberr of slams contested in which the 1st, 2nd etc slams are
won by both Fed and Rafa.

No. -- Fed ------- Rafa

1 --- 17 ------------ 6
2 --- 19 ------------ 9
3 --- 21 ------------ 13
4 --- 22 ------------ 17
5 --- 25 ------------ 18
6 --- 26 ------------ 20
7 --- 27 ------------ 24
8 --- 29 ------------ 25
9 --- 30 ------------ 26
10 -- 31 ------------ 28
11 -- 33 ------------ 32
12 -- 34 ------------ 34
13 -- 38 ------------ 36
14 -- 40 ------------ 38
15 -- 41 ------------ ? >= 40
16 -- 43 ------------ ?
17 -- 53 ------------ ?
18 -- ? >= 62 ----- ?
19 -- ? -------------- ?

As we all know, Roger is a late bloomer who took 17 slam appearances to win
the first one, but then after winning the first one he accumulated GSs rapidly
and then at the tailend his rate has dropped enormously (especially after the 16th)

Rafa had a good head start winning his first slam in 6th appearance itself.
However, that did not help him to stay much ahead as he cooled off
for various periods in between. To win the 12th slam, Rafa needed
34 appearances which is exactly same as what Roger needed. At the
moment, Rafa appears to be in good shape as he won the 14th in 38
appearances whereas Fed needed two more. But there is more
to the story.

In the numbers above, I did not count a slam for either player if they
did not even participate. Roger has missed only one slam since his
first appearance in a slam (as he lost in the qualifying tourney), whereas
Rafa has missed six slams since his first appearance in a slam (mostly
due to various ailments from head to toe). If we count, the missed ones
also, Roger won the 14th slam in the 41st sequential slam since his
first appearance, whereas Rafa won the 14th slam in the 44th sequential
since his first appearance. So, Roger appears to be in good shape.
As age and milage increases, we should expect (no, I am not wishing
that here) Rafa to miss more slams in between before he retires. That
would give Rafa a severe disadvantage in the end game.

Given that Rafa's front end of the curve was good, we can possibly
expect good back end as well assuming a bell shaped curve. That would
give advantage for Rafa in exceeding Roger's count.

On the other hand, Rafa turned pro (about 15) two years younger than
when Roger turned pro (about 17). Assuming the same longevity (without
making any convoluted references to the "playing style of Rafa" theory),
Rafa will have to retire two years earlier than the age at which Roger retires.
So, one should expect less number of remaining slam appearances
for Rafa in comparison to Roger from any given specific age. That would
give Rafa less advantage in racking up the slams.

This is just a head to head analysis of Fed and Rafa and I don't have
the necessary patience, energy or time to gather similar data for other
slam winners as well and use them to make more scientific prediction
as in the original article, but using the number of slam appearances
(as opposed to age) as the primary consideration.

 

[Kieran]

Thanks for the info, GSM, it's interesting to read.

One thing I'm wondering while reading it: the next guy who approaches either of these two in tally is gonna have to be some player.

By the way, you're not the first to say that Roger is a late bloomer, but in fact, he seems to be normal, especially since we've only had 2 teenage winners of slams since 1990: Pete and Rafa. And it took Pete a couple of years to grow into the expectations of him, and Rafa was still a rookie on all surfaces not coloured red when he won his first, so Roger getting his first at 21 isn't too tardy...

 

[Front242]

^ I'm hoping the next player to really make a mark in terms of racking up slams is Nick Kyrgios. Only time will tell but he's definitely a hell of a player already at 19.