PDA

View Full Version : What if: There was no Fed? Or no Rafa?


dpfrazier
06-11-2007, 09:14 AM
If there was no Federer, then the ATP tour since 2003 would probably have looked like this:

Roddick - two more Wimbledons and another US Open
Nadal - a Wimbledon title
Hewitt and Agassi - another US Open
Safin - another Australian Open
Baghdatis and Gonzalez - an Australian Open
Philippoussis - a WimbledonRoddick would have benefited the most, and the tour would have been much more balanced and competitive. But we would have missed the genius of Federer.

If there was no Nadal, then:

Fed would have 13 majors, one Grand Slam (2006), and be on his way to 15 majors and a second Grand Slam in 2007. And then he would retire as the undisputed GOAT after the US Open. And again no more of the genius of Federer.

The ATP tour would have been a very boring affair.

Yes, I know you can argue that the seedings in the majors would have been different, either Fed or Rafa beat players earlier in the draws that might have challenged for titles, Safin would still be a head case, Philippoussis would still be doing a seedy reality TV show, etc.

My point is that while I'm a Fed fan, thank God Rafa came along to provide some balance to the ATP tour and some relevance to Fed's legacy.

theballboy
06-11-2007, 09:25 AM
If there was no Federer, then the ATP tour since 2003 would probably have looked like this:

Roddick - two more Wimbledons and another US Open
Nadal - a Wimbledon title
Hewitt and Agassi - another US Open
Safin - another Australian Open
Baghdatis and Gonzalez - an Australian Open
Philippoussis - a WimbledonRoddick would have benefited the most, and the tour would have been much more balanced and competitive. But we would have missed the genius of Federer.

If there was no Nadal, then:

Fed would have 13 majors, one Grand Slam (2006), and be on his way to 15 majors and a second Grand Slam in 2007. And then he would retire as the undisputed GOAT after the US Open. And again no more of the genius of Federer.

The ATP tour would have been a very boring affair.

Yes, I know you can argue that the seedings in the majors would have been different, either Fed or Rafa beat players earlier in the draws that might have challenged for titles, Safin would still be a head case, Philippoussis would still be doing a seedy reality TV show, etc.

My point is that while I'm a Fed fan, thank God Rafa came along to provide some balance to the ATP tour and some relevance to Fed's legacy.

Good assessment. However, there are some tiny flaws.

Without Federer, who's to say Nadal would be perennial #2? Part of the reason he made it to the Wimbledon final was because of his draw, which he was only guaranteed of because of his number 2 seeding. Had he been number one, say, he might very well have gone out earlier.

We don't really now how the GSs would play out without Fed. Gonzo had the fortune of being on the opposite half from him, thus making it to the finals. Before he lost to Fed, he was nigh unbeatable. What if a player could've gone on a similar hot streak in last years USO, meeting and defeating Roddick, but instead lost to Federer in the first or second round?

So many what ifs at work here.

Mr. Sean
06-11-2007, 10:57 AM
Roddick would have won 2 us opens 2 wimbledons and possibly an australian open. More kids with pure drives emulating his sloppy ground strokes.

Kobble
06-11-2007, 11:10 AM
Agassi would have 10 slams, or more. Safin would have 3 slams, and many more Masters. Hewitt would have 4. Baggy would have one. The list goes on.

jmsx521
06-11-2007, 11:20 AM
Davydenko -- Roland Garros 07!

Andres
06-11-2007, 11:33 AM
Without Federer or Nadal, Nalbandian would have a couple of slams, too. Trading the Top3 with probably Hewitt and Roddick. Coria would still be in the Top10. Robredo and Ferrer attacking the QF and SF of every clay tourney.

Ancic would have won Wimbledon a couple of times, meeting Roddick in the finals a couple of times.

Lleyton Hewitt
06-11-2007, 11:49 AM
I think HEwitt would be number 1.....if it wasnt for Fed he could of had a few more grand slams us open wimbledons.....how many times in 2004 or 2005 was it he lost to federer??? plus he lost to nadal in last 2 french opens n hamgburg masters ....based on form i think the top 4 atm is fed nadal djokovic hewitt

dpfrazier
06-11-2007, 11:50 AM
Good assessment. However, there are some tiny flaws.

Without Federer, who's to say Nadal would be perennial #2? Part of the reason he made it to the Wimbledon final was because of his draw, which he was only guaranteed of because of his number 2 seeding. Had he been number one, say, he might very well have gone out earlier.

We don't really now how the GSs would play out without Fed. Gonzo had the fortune of being on the opposite half from him, thus making it to the finals. Before he lost to Fed, he was nigh unbeatable. What if a player could've gone on a similar hot streak in last years USO, meeting and defeating Roddick, but instead lost to Federer in the first or second round?

So many what ifs at work here.
I had alluded to some of your points in my post. Thanks for bringing them out more specifically.

The possible minus-Fed scenarios have much more variety, since he has won so many majors. Minus-Nadal is easier to predict...

Swingin Richard
06-11-2007, 12:07 PM
Andy might be wearing nike instead of lacoste and maybe playing with a wilson

jamumafa
06-11-2007, 12:50 PM
You make it sound as if Federer wasnt around that all the opponents he beat had a title. I think Flipper would have lost the final to Roddick

David L
06-11-2007, 02:21 PM
If there was no Federer, then the ATP tour since 2003 would probably have looked like this:

Roddick - two more Wimbledons and another US Open
Nadal - a Wimbledon title
Hewitt and Agassi - another US Open
Safin - another Australian Open
Baghdatis and Gonzalez - an Australian Open
Philippoussis - a WimbledonRoddick would have benefited the most, and the tour would have been much more balanced and competitive. But we would have missed the genius of Federer.

If there was no Nadal, then:

Fed would have 13 majors, one Grand Slam (2006), and be on his way to 15 majors and a second Grand Slam in 2007. And then he would retire as the undisputed GOAT after the US Open. And again no more of the genius of Federer.

The ATP tour would have been a very boring affair.

Yes, I know you can argue that the seedings in the majors would have been different, either Fed or Rafa beat players earlier in the draws that might have challenged for titles, Safin would still be a head case, Philippoussis would still be doing a seedy reality TV show, etc.

My point is that while I'm a Fed fan, thank God Rafa came along to provide some balance to the ATP tour and some relevance to Fed's legacy.Why do you think Federer would retire after his second Grandslam? He would only retire if he was bored or stopped enjoying tennis.

dpfrazier
06-11-2007, 03:14 PM
Why do you think Federer would retire after his second Grandslam? He would only retire if he was bored or stopped enjoying tennis.
Just speculation of course, but if there were no Rafa, and everything else went true to form, then Fed would have just won 11 slams in a row, tied Laver with two Grand Slams, and eclipsed Sampras with 15 slams total. A great time to go out --- on top, and as the undisputed GOAT. There would be nowhere else to go but down. Very much like Lance after the 2005 Tour de France.

tricky
06-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Frankly, it would have been truly awesome had Federer done exactly that and disappeared off the face of the earth. The man who in a period of 4 years rewrote tennis as we know it, and then left it turned on its ear.

Every single champion after that would be looked upon with suspicion, since nobody would have had to face The God himself. People would talk of this period with a reverence and awe.

Tennis_Monk
06-11-2007, 04:24 PM
Tennis would move on. There would be some other champions trying to emulate Sampras or an Agassi. Instead we have a new standard in Roger.

cghipp
06-11-2007, 05:13 PM
Anyone think Sampras might have hung around for another year or so if he hadn't seen something like his mirror image rising to the top (and beating him)?

califsurferboy33
06-11-2007, 05:23 PM
i think hewitt would have done a lot better if it wasn't for federer. they had a statistic up from like 2004 or 05 where he lost to federer in every single big tourney.

TheNatural
06-11-2007, 07:08 PM
What if Rafter had stuck around a bit longer to keep on beating Federer.

cghipp
06-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Yes, too bad Rafter couldn't get a bionic shoulder replacement. I wish there was someone around at the highest level with his kind of game.

DashaandSafin
06-11-2007, 08:24 PM
What if there would be no Fed or Rafa? Then this board wouln't exist. All the Rafa and Fed trolls make up 99% of the threads anyway.