Can Federer Break Connors Record Of 109 ATP Titles?

Excuse me, that leaves him 8 titles short of tying the record.

Can you see Mirka and the twins in one of those mini-cars Sam Querrey goes around Newport in. Btw, Scoop, I will be in Newport late Wednesday night of July 10th and watch the matches and hopefully if you’re around, hit some balls with you on the nifty hard courts right behind the Hall of Fame, Thurs, Fri and Sat.

The question is, would Fed definitely win Newport? The grass plays so much differently than Wimby’s and guys like Murray and Blake and Raonic have played over the years I’ve been going, only to be felled in early rounds. But my betting money would be on Fed and it would be not only historic but a joy to watch. The ball stays so low there and I’ve seen guys like Dusan Vemic and Dustin Brown, very unconventional players, along with, of course, the Magician, Santoro, confound the baseline bashers there.

Sampras wasn’t too concerned and I don’t think Federer cares much about the 109 record. I wonder if Nadal though is interested in Federer’s record of slam titles. Nadal now has 12 slams, so he’s 5 behind Fed at 27. Winning the French for five more years might be do-able – but more likely he’d prefer winning two slams per year (so Wimbledon this year, brings him 13, then next year maybe French and Wimbledon again, that would be 15, then maybe win another Oz, French ( 17 ) then bookend it with slam #18 in 2016 at the ripe old age of 30-31.

Even if Rafa has enough of Toni, my understanding is that it’s not just Toni…it’s a group of Nadal uncles all of who have all sorts of influence over him – we need to look at the pack of wolves not just Toni. Example – Toni says something Nadal doesn’t like. Nadal complains to his mom, who then calls her ex-husband (Nadal’s dad) who has a chat with Nadal when they are out fishing, which then returns Nadal to the practice court with Toni. It’s a closed loop there. Nadal doesn’t take off to live in Monte Carlo – he stays put in Mayorca where he has everyone cooking for him so he can play video games etc.

My sense of Nadal is that he’s “1” a little (or a lot) OCD – pretty fastidious based on TP writing about making sure his water bottles are just right. That he has toweled off a million times. That he takes a specific amount of seconds between points. Etc and so on. “2” that his way of talking is humble – but deliberate. This is the pattern his family has forced on him so that he will always keep working hard, so that he can always do better. They just listen to him and then say exactly what he needs to hear as a group of old wise men that he trusts.

3. Toni must play the Pete Fischer role – but instead of saying “you can be better than Federer” he says “the record books say you are worse, even if you have beaten him twenty times, you dont have his stature – he has more Wimbledons he has more AO he has more US Opens, so how could you say you are better?” This is all meant to keep Nadal working hard, putting things in a huge context and saying listen, you are good but you cant say you are the best because you have competition breathing down your neck and all of this could disappear tomorrow. The methodology of one match at a time – that’s simply the hard process of staying focused. Agassi always talked about this – about execution.

4. Here’s where the OCD element comes in again. How can someone play in a way that is sometimes so tedious? Only by focusing in an extreme way. Nadal is known to go after Federer’s backhand mercilessly – other players would get bored with this easily, but not Nadal. Why? My hunch is actually that I have no idea. Maybe he has seen it works, or Toni said go after it a million times and you will win – I Dont know. I think it’s an awful thing but let’s celebrate what that skill is – no matter how boring Nadal can execute a pattern until the cows come home. That in itself is a strategy that many players would benefit from. How much would it stink to know that someone is going after my backhand? All match long? And punishing me for my bad backhand – not just every game bbut every point? That takes an awful lot of siscipline even if it is boring as heck and robs the sport of some enjoyment.

If you read about Nadal and how he talks about what’s needed to play a tennis match you see he is very much a chess player – not unlike Rios (even if he has no idea who Rios is). Nadal is reminded constantly that he can break down at any moment, that he has to push himself and that he cant leave anything to chance, at all. He takes such extreme precautions to remain in the sport.

Agassi once said Nadal is a freak. I dont think that’s all that off the mark. We all know what we SHOULD do to be better. But how many of us can do this? Nadal has stayed away from all sorts of temptations it seems, his family has protected him in many ways,, Nadal hasn’t rebelled whatsoever, he just stays unilaterally focused on the mission.

Let’s call Toni’s buff here. From what Dan says and what Steve says it sounds like Toni’s focus on every ball plan is just the face of a long term strategy to be history’s best player.

Agree Andy, Nadal has a great cocoon of love and support.

I wonder if Uncle Toni would adjust his style if Rafa’s personality were different. It would be fascinating to see Uncle Toni coach someone else though this will never happen. I definitely don’t see Rafa as a mindless automaton but willing to play that role to certain extent.

Maybe Scoop, this is why Nadal and Klischko are considered boring by even tennis and boxing cognoscenti. I mean I can watch Nadal for only so long and then it gets a little boring for me. He does seem like he’s in his own cocoon and that makes the ability to draw close to him as a fan less palpable. And then, he does stick over and over to a game plan that doesn’t include much diversion. It’s effective, and aesthetic in a certain way, but there’s not much drama involved.

I’ve never seen Klitschko fight, but I always hated big tall fighters who played it safe. Even the later Ali, and the rope-a-dope I found tiresome. I loved the George Foreman types who said, “I’m going to knock your head. I could care less about boxing.” And then they set out to do that with as much menace and speed as possible. Johnny Mac at his best, and Sampras, were like this in tennis. Mac would sometimes hit an approach shot right up the middle of the court, approach the net and dare his opponent to pass him. That to me is exciting tennis. It’s basically saying, “I’m so quick and so good with my hands and feet, all your fancy strokes are useless against me.”

Can’t see Toni continuing in coaching – I think Toni is in the perfect seat now and no other job could match it, and he can say stuff (even bluntly honest things) to Rafa that no one else could get away with (“You’re good but others are better…your forehand’s a lot worse than other players”). It also seems like it’s more than Toni in the kitchen – you have a whole family unit pushing Nadal (like Djokovic and his family, but other coaches have also made Djokovic Djokovic and Djokovic acknowledges as much).

As far as Nadal’s ambition, Tony’s on the record as saying in March following Nadal’s Indian Wells win that he saw 3-4 more slams for Rafa – so if it were 4 then he saw Nadal winning 15 total (including this year’s French). But Tony’s also on the record as saying Nadal should have beaten Federer even more because Nadal was injured a few times they played (I think that’s a load of you know what! But I think it also shows that Tony thinks Nadal’s better and probably wants to go down as the coach of the world’s best player, and the way to do that is get Nadal to more slams than Federer).

Loved Wilander. Masterful tactics and always thinking out there, always fighting.

Scoop it is pretty boring to watch Nadal hit shot after shot at Federer’s backhand when they play. I had read that after Nadal beat Federer in the semi in Roland Garros in 05 that in 06, before they met finals, Nadal watched their 05 match to remember what it was like to beat Federer on stade Roland Garros, then went out and pushed himself to a four set triumph.

But it’s not exciting when Federer plays Nadal. I wish Federer would go after one of Nadal’s shots (and return the favor of how to annoy your opponent to no end) but Federer, being above this, doesn’t do it so he’s going to end up, probably, a notch below Nadal on the “greatest” list because of that huge asterisk – most slam titles but awful record against his rival ( even taking into account surfaces, it’s not amazing ).

If Nadal has to hit a shot up the line 29 times to win a point he’ll do it. On the one hand that’s sheer dedication – you’ll bore yourself to win. On the other it’s crazy, why would you want to hit the same shot 29 times?!

The object is still to win Majors, not entertain. You have to go in with the game plan that is going to get a win. It’s up to Fed to come up with a plan to beat Nadal. Nadal will grind any one handed bh in a 3 of set on clay. Hitting that bh above your shoulders for 3 or 4 hours is impossible

@Harold true unless you’re a really tall one hander that can end the point quickly. The backhand side wasn’t an issue at all for Brands in their last match, in fact he ripped many winners.

If you think Nadal is a boring machine playing tennis, Borg would have been destroyed in this thread.

Scoop, those 3 players made a nice living playing tennis, but no Majors, with only Rios getting to a final

Scoop,

Congrats on your Rios book going to Kindle. Everyone should give it a read. It’s got an amazing array of voices in it commenting on the talented, but disenchanted Chilean.

You left out a few of my favorite players, including Henri Leconte, Andrew Ilie and Van Winitsky. Of course, there was Vitas, too, and Nastase and Newk. Finally, I’ll end with Navratilova, Mandlikova, Sabatini and I can’t leave out Santoro or Johan Kriek.

Steve, Harold and Scoop are all right on this – sheesh, I never thought about it. Lendl WAS amazing (I actually loved watching him hit the scoop forehand, where he slices underneath the ball on the forehand side and the ball would just skid off the court past a right’s backhand – opponents were dumbfounded by this trick shot and I never see it these days). But it’s true, he had none of the artistry of McEnroe, and no one brings Lendl up – he has no biography out there (only instruction manuals on how to play and how to train). And he still has skin in the game through his coaching with Murray.

It’s true what Steve and Harold sais too about the eras and how Federer was basically best of his own generation (with Hewitt) and how that is different from Nadal-Djokovic. Federer put Sampras and Agassi into retirement (like Nadal against todays players, Federer beat Agassi what, ten times in a row or more from the end of 2003 to 2005?). And the point about what great players give up (a little artistry for more consistency and boring strategy) is true. It may not be as fun for the fan, but who’s holding the trophy in the end? Rarely the more inventive player.

Federer’s probably given us best of both worlds here. He’s been artistic AND consistent, and to his credit he hates playing the same way all the time – he tries to bring something interesting every time, and as much as most players in history gives the audience memorable shot making (as McEnroe said, Federer plays the way McEnroe wants to play in his dreams). Call him a disciplined Rios of sorts – showing what it’s like to have a lot of Rios’ arsenal, combined with a pragmatism (like hitting kick down the T on a deuce match point to a player’s backhand).

Nadal can certainly be inventive when he wants to – he has quite a few tricks himself. And parts of his game are indeed beautiful, some of the forehands when he follows through over the shoulder in a classic way(rather than the lasso follow through, which to me is quite an ugly shot) or the backhands where he threads the needle on a passing shot – those can be mesmerizing. But Nadal dresses down his game to win and sacrifices artistry for a fierce consistency (often blistering given how much that ball is spinning from the excess topspin).

What might be the biggest takeaway in the Nadal era is the ultra spin and how it works. I used to try to spin the ball and was discouraged. Obviously hitting with excessive topspin is a winning formula if you do it right. Now you see what a lot of developing players are up against? The dogma that only a classic game works.

Headline: It’s not the only game that works.

I’m with you Andy. My favorite active player is Gasquet because he often plays beautiful tennis, IMO.

What is this love affair with Klahn on this site? The guy is turning 23 this summer and he’s ranked No. 178. But he’s not even that good. He’s only beaten one player in the 200’s, none in the top-200, and the guy he beat, Tennys Sandgren, isn’t going anywhere either. One thing we know about Klhan is that he isn’t a clay court player. He’s played 8 clay events this year, and the furthest he went was a quarters of a Futures. You want to look at a college player having a little success, look at Johnson or Williams, I’d say Klahn has stalled.