Who is more likely to complete a career slam: Federer or Nadal?

Question

Who is more likely to complete a career slam: Federer or Nadal?

Answer 1

I still think Roger has a chance, even if he's had a really hard year. and Nadal isn't a complete player like Roger.. I'd like to see better results on those hardcourts instead of him being burnt out by the time hardcourt season comes around.

Answer 2

Well Fed has proven his greatness on all surfaces by winning 3 out of 4 Slams and being runner up at the French thrice. He was the one who stopped Nadals clay record short and now Nadal returned the favour with Rogers grass winning streak. If we compare Nadal to Borg, Borg won Wimby and the French but could never crack the USO or AO and neither has Nadal. Had Tsonga not been playing out of his mind tennis against Nadal at the AO this year Nadal would have certainly won against the Djoker. I would have to say Fed winning the French rather than Nadal winning the AO & USO since Nadal may injure his foot, knee, or something else the way he plays all out and Roger just needs to make sure he returns to his pre Mono form and he would be unbeatable by the rest of the field. Roger isn't just going to roll over and die or quit the game because he lost to Nadal twice now in Majors. He is too mentally tough but he does need to work on his mental game a little more. Yesterday he seemed to tense up and hit to Nadal rather than hit his usual winners. Even match point had him going to Nadal's backhand while Nadal was in the deuce court when the ad side was wide open and begging for an inside out forehand winner. He didn't get to 12 Grandslams and # 1 for the past 4 and half years by not being the best in the sport.

Answer 3

Nadal is my guess for he looks much more prepared and much more determined to win. Federer i suppose is trying hard to pace with Nadal, maybe he is indeed feeling the heat from Nadal.

Answer 4

I was saying, even before Wimbledon, that Raffa was going to pull off wins at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.  He looks very strong and seems to have corrected any deficiencies that he had on faster surfaces.  If he does in fact win both, then the Australian is the only one left to complete a career slam.

Despite Djokovic's poor showing in London, I think that is more of a fluke than anything, and I expect him to be tough again at the U.S. and again in January at the Australian.  Of course, Federer will remain a threat, but the perception of invincibility is gone forever.  Either of these men could throw a spoke in the wheel of Nadal's chances to capture a career slam, but I would say the odds of him doing so are probably around 80-20 for, if not in 2009, then at least at some point in the future.  We must remember, he's only 22, so he has a few years left in his prime.  Barring this knee injury causing an extended absence, I see Nadal being #1 by year end.

Answer 5

Nadal

Answer 6

The boys put up a good match for us at Wimbledon.  Really close.  I think Federer ended up winning 204 points and Nadal, 209.  Federer is a more complete player, but Nadal is more powerful.  Federer seemed a little less hungry and he made the mistake of running around his backhand a couple of times and getting jammed.  (probably because Nadal is a southpaw).  5-6 points might have been enough.

Let's have a breakdown:

Federer:  Great all court game.  Great athlere.  Only needs the French.  Has the shots to play clay.  Has done well on clay.  But he hasn't dominated on clay.  Great mind.  Downside:  26 years old.  May have lost a little edge.  He also has to go through Nadal at the French who may be the best clay court player ever.  Bottom line:  He will be lucky to win the French, but it would not be a big surprize.

Nadal:  A clay court player who has adapted his game for grass and hard courts.  He is, in some sense, a reinvented Borg -- only better.  Has the same athletism as Federer, but more powerful, like a big cat.  He is only 22 and is hungry.  Hard courts are going to be is most difficult surface.  He has to win both the Australian and US.  He'll need to improve a little to do so, but he is still young.  It will be tough, but no surprize.

Objectively, Federer would be the best bet -- he is the closest.  However, it appears that he might be on a decline and Nadal  accendent.  I'll bet on Federer for now.

Answer 7

Hmm a tough one but I would surely say Nadal- and I would say this year is the most likely.Reason is Fed cant beat Rafa on clay in the French Open.Just like the great Pete Sampras couldnt win the French it is unlikely Roger will- but he has come very close- problem is  Rafas gets better each year..

Answer 8

Great question and now that NADAL has got the Wimbledon monkey off his back it looks like he will get the four majors before FEDERER.

However, they are still capable of beating each other so it may not happen.

FEDERER has to employ a coach simply to devise winning strategies both technical and mental to overcome the raging bull from Spain. It is my view Roger looked a little lost at times during the Wimbledon final but then again who doesn't against such a relentless barrage.

This win may be all Rafael needs to become 'invincible' in much the same way Roger did after getting his first win at Wimbledon. If he does move into this 'higher' zone, [and I think he will as he has just turned 22 and is still improving], then the illusive 'Grand Slam' will surely be his. If that is achieved then he must also be considered the best tennis player of all time.

Roger cannot get that title until he wins the French and gets a 'Grand Slam'.

However, let us remember Rod Laver got two and would have more but was prevented for ten years when he was a 'Professional' before the game became 'Open'.

A well thought out question Dr D and it will be fascinating to see how both players respond particularly at the upcoming U.S. Open.

One thing is perfectly clear, the two of them are light years ahead of any other current player apart from Djokovich.

Answer 9

I would say Federer. He has about 3 or 4 shots left to sneak in a French Open if Nadal loses prior to or shows up to the final with an injury or is fatigued. For the forseeable future, the only way to beat Nadal on clay is if he has an injury or is just plain tired (e.g. Hamburg last year). The guy is too mentally strong to have an 'off day' on the dirt. Federer is still the clear No.2 on clay.

As for Nadal,  it will be more difficult to win both the US and Aussie Open as the rising star (Joker) and still No.1 (Fed) are better than him on hard courts, tactically speaking. Other aggressive players like Nalbandian, Berdych, Gasquet, Murray, Gulbis and that new Japanese kid (I forget the name) also have the game to beat Nadal on hardcourts.  The surface is hard on his knees and his style of play. He also needs to learn to hit the ball deeper on hardcourts.

I think he will not have that long a career as Federer because his knees probably won't hold up past 26 or 27 years. I hope he wins as much as he can while he can.  In the mean time, he needs to minimize his schedule to the bare minimum even if that means losing his No.1 ranking temporarily (after he gets it). That way when he regains the top ranking, he can hold onto it for some time. I don't think the Wimbledon win will take him to another plane. He was on another plane for the past few years already. On the other hand, Federer had a confidence issue in Grand Slams which went away with his first Wimbledon win and that produced prodigious results. I see Nadal winning 8 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons and probably 2 Aussie Opens. I leave out the US Open because his knees will be banged up during the long summer hardcourt season when he arrives in New York. Unless he decides to skip most of the warm up tournaments and has a good draw to the final, I don't see it happening.  

Though you didn't include him in your question, I think Djokovic has the best chance of the three to win a career slam. The guy has solid fundamentals, has the mental fortitude, is young and plays in a way that is not injurious to his health.

PS: In case you were wondering, I am a Nadal fan but I am telling it as I see it, not what I hope.

Answer 10

Nadal.  I think Federer has almost no chance.  I think he has at most 3 more slams in him and 3 is generous!

I'll  wait to see how Nadal plays the US Open to see where his hard court game is.  If he can make the finals this year, he will almost definitely win a career slam.

Answer 11

Neither. Roger Federer can never win on clay at the French Open as long as Rafael Nadal is still around. Rafael Nadal can win both on clay and on grass because it is easier on his body and his playing style ( lot of running). However, just like Bjorn Borg, I bet he can not win on hard surface, watch the upcoming US Open and you will see.

Answer 12

Nadal...cus theres a higher probability of Nadal winning on hard court than Federer winning a clay court title while Nadal is still playing tennis.

Answer 13

Easy one.  Nadal is not so good on hard court and will be happy if he ever win one time a slam on hard court.  

Answer is Roger.

Answer 14

Right now I think it is Nadal. I feel and felt yesterday that Federer is intimidated by Nadal as was shown by the fact that he had more opportunities to break Nadal, but just failed to carry through whereas Nadal took advantage of his opportunities.Federer Got lucky with the rain break, or I think it would have been a 3 setter.

Federer has a very strong serve but Nadal is extremely fit, goes after every shot and keeps his opponent running for the ball and has a strong desire to win. He does have a weakness on hard courts but I think he is improving his game. He already improved his game on grass.