PDA

View Full Version : If Nadal and/or Federer Did not Exist???


Milan
06-04-2008, 07:06 PM
Perhaps there has been a post similar to this. I am not these boards every day but I would love to start a topic discussing if Nadal OR Federer did not exist and secondly and separately, what would happen if both did not exist.

Now, I think Nadal would very well have 2 Wimbledons to go with his 3 French Opens. He would not have to push himself to catch Roger and thus he would probably play more Clay tournaments and less Hard Court tournaments (Feb-April). One could also argue that there would be a ton of points to be had by the rest of the field if Fed did not exist, but I think that Nadal would still clearly be number 1 for the last 3 years.

Vice Versa, If Nadal did not exist perhaps Fed would have 3 straight French Opens assuming when he lost to Nadal in the Semis in 2005 he would have probably went on to beat Mariano Puerta, going on possibly a 4th straight French Open. Federer has only lost to Nadal at the French past 3 years. Perhaps HE would be considered the greatest clay courter of all time and surely the best player of all time. Most likely, he would have been at 15 Grand Slams.

If both players did not exist, there would in my opinion be different players winning Wimbledon and French all the time the past 3 years and no one besides Djokovic NOW is dominant and all matches are pretty open. Djokovic would be the Wimbledon favorite.

It's great to see 1 on 1 rivalries like BJORG-McEnroe, Sampras-Agassi, and now Nadal-Federer.

Wouldnt it unbelieveable if Federer won Roland Garros and Nadal won Wimbledon? That is what I would love to see.

FedForGOAT
06-04-2008, 07:51 PM
If Nadal didn't exist:

Federer would have most likely been 96-1 in 2006. He would have had a Grand Slam, 16 titles, the best winning % for a year, and probably the best year in the Open Era. He would also probably have 3RG titles and therefore the most Majors titles ever. He'd probably already be the consensus GOAT.

If Federer didn't exist:
Nadal would have had 1 or 2 Wimbledons. He would have spent a considerable time at #1 but not the whole 3 last years. He'd cause many comparisons to BOrg. Andy Roddick would have had around 5 GS titles and would be a major threat on grass and HC. He'd also be much more confident and hit his FH with more authority.

Swissv2
06-04-2008, 08:21 PM
If Nadal and Federer did not exist, then we would have a mens game similar to the WTA right now.

tennis08tarheels
06-04-2008, 08:27 PM
If Nadal and Federer did not exist, then we would have a mens game similar to the WTA right now.

You missed the point. It's not "and," it's either/or.

Peaches
06-04-2008, 08:33 PM
very interesting thread!

i dont have much to add that hasnt been said already but i DO know this, the game wouldnt be as exciting. The Roddicks and Blacks would be dominating, trailing behind Djokovic of course.

msc886
06-04-2008, 08:42 PM
Don't want to imagine it. Those 2 have raised the bar so much its what makes it more interesting.

Defcon
06-04-2008, 08:45 PM
Both Fed and Nadal have redefined what a tennis player is capable of. They are both special in their own way and if they had not come along, we would never even have known what greatness we had missed.

Mansewerz
06-04-2008, 08:46 PM
You missed the point. It's not "and," it's either/or.

No, the OP also mentioend if they both didn't exist.

Swissv2
06-04-2008, 08:54 PM
You missed the point. It's not "and," it's either/or.

"If Nadal and/or Federer Did not Exist???"

the word "AND" is inclusive of both players. Go back to school.

tennis08tarheels
06-04-2008, 09:01 PM
"If Nadal and/or Federer Did not Exist???"

the word "AND" is inclusive of both players. Go back to school.

Dumbs f*cks like you are what brings TT down, day after day.

Perhaps there has been a post similar to this. I am not these boards every day but I would love to start a topic discussing if Nadal OR Federer did not exist.

Mansewerz
06-04-2008, 09:03 PM
Perhaps there has been a post similar to this. I am not these boards every day but I would love to start a topic discussing if Nadal OR Federer did not exist and secondly and separately, what would happen if both did not exist.

Now, I think Nadal would very well have 2 Wimbledons to go with his 3 French Opens. He would not have to push himself to catch Roger and thus he would probably play more Clay tournaments and less Hard Court tournaments (Feb-April). One could also argue that there would be a ton of points to be had by the rest of the field if Fed did not exist, but I think that Nadal would still clearly be number 1 for the last 3 years.

Vice Versa, If Nadal did not exist perhaps Fed would have 3 straight French Opens assuming when he lost to Nadal in the Semis in 2005 he would have probably went on to beat Mariano Puerta, going on possibly a 4th straight French Open. Federer has only lost to Nadal at the French past 3 years. Perhaps HE would be considered the greatest clay courter of all time and surely the best player of all time. Most likely, he would have been at 15 Grand Slams.

If both players did not exist, there would in my opinion be different players winning Wimbledon and French all the time the past 3 years and no one besides Djokovic NOW is dominant and all matches are pretty open. Djokovic would be the Wimbledon favorite.

It's great to see 1 on 1 rivalries like BJORG-McEnroe, Sampras-Agassi, and now Nadal-Federer.

Wouldnt it unbelieveable if Federer won Roland Garros and Nadal won Wimbledon? That is what I would love to see.

Dumbs f*cks like you are what brings TT down, day after day.

Yet, even the OP mentions the possibility of both not playing. One that is also in the title. Go back to school.

Babb
06-04-2008, 09:05 PM
You missed the point. It's not "and," it's either/or.

Actually, it says "and/or" in the thread title. You just made a fool of yourself over the internet, where everyone in the world can witness your idiocy. Congratulations!

Babb
06-04-2008, 09:07 PM
Dumbs f*cks like you are what brings TT down, day after day.
No, I'm pretty sure it's the idiots who use the four letter words that are not allowed on TT. You know, the ones who break the rules and get banned. :)

Swissv2
06-04-2008, 09:07 PM
If both players did not exist, there would in my opinion be different players winning Wimbledon and French all the time the past 3 years and no one besides Djokovic NOW is dominant and all matches are pretty open. Djokovic would be the Wimbledon favorite.




Quoting the OP, he talks about if BOTH PLAYERS DID NOT EXIST. Learn to read, Babb

Babb
06-04-2008, 09:10 PM
Quoting the OP, he talks about if BOTH PLAYERS DID NOT EXIST. Learn to read, Babb

Um... you just agreed with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since the title says "and", he means both. Lol.

Swissv2
06-04-2008, 09:11 PM
Thanks, Babb, I need to learn to read also. Back to school for me!!! :)

Photoshop
06-04-2008, 09:25 PM
If Federer didn't exist:
.... Andy Roddick would have had around 5 GS titles...

Thank GOD for Federer!!!

joeri888
06-04-2008, 11:03 PM
I actually wonder how many Grandslams Rafa would have. He'd stand a chance at hardcourts too, might have even won the Masters cup once? Would probably have at least one probably 2 wimbledon titles. And would be number 1 for three years in a row, at his age!

Roger would be the undisputed GOAT if Nadal wasn't around. Last two years, Roger was the clear number 2 on clay, would have won REoland Garros 2 years in a row, and with that probably 2 year Grand slams. He'd have 14 or 15 slams by now and would have lost like 1 match in 2006. That's why Federer's among the best claycourters ever. He's way behind Rafa and Borg.. But imagine Rafa played in another era.. Roger'd seriously had a chance to win 3 Roland Garros titles.

Both players are amazing and are quite unlucky to live in each others eras. Rafa might never be no. 1 or win wimbledon (worst case scenario) and Roger might never win the title he wants most, Roland Garros.. He'll never win a career grandslam maybe, and what looks pretty likely at one stage, winning them all in one year, isn't very likely either with this Nadal around.

crawl4
06-05-2008, 12:38 AM
whos losing out more..i mean like when you look at what either player could have already achieved without one or the other..also consider nadal still has more left in him in terms of years

cueboyzn
06-05-2008, 03:00 AM
If Federer and Nadal did not exist, Tennis would be nowhere near as popular worldwide as it is right now. In a nutshell.

veroniquem
06-05-2008, 03:11 AM
Dumbs f*cks like you are what brings TT down, day after day.
What brings TT down is people who can't refrain from insulting other people, using the kind of language that gets their posts deleted...

deme08
06-05-2008, 03:18 AM
My post from another thread assuming if the top 3 doesn't exist:

2008 AO champion: Tsonga.

2007 UO champion: Davydenko or Ferrer.
2007 WB champion: Gasquet.
2007 RG champion: Davydenko.
2007 AO: Gonzalez

2006 USO: Roddick
2006 Wimb: Bjorkman or Baghdatis
2006 RG: Nalbandian (Ljubicic had no chance)
2006 AO: Baghdatis

2005 USO: Agassi
2005 Wimb: Roddick
2005 RG: Davydenko (Puerta wasn't legit)
2005 AO: Safin (the real winner)

Overall, Davydenko and Roddick would've had 3 slams each, two undisputed candidates for GOAT!

EDIT: obviously need modify to include Djokovic.

kelz
06-05-2008, 03:19 AM
If Federer and Nadal did not exist, Andy Roddick would be winning some slams.

zagor
06-05-2008, 03:53 AM
If Nadal didn't exist:

Federer would have most likely been 96-1 in 2006. He would have had a Grand Slam, 16 titles, the best winning % for a year, and probably the best year in the Open Era. He would also probably have 3RG titles and therefore the most Majors titles ever. He'd probably already be the consensus GOAT.

If Federer didn't exist:
Nadal would have had 1 or 2 Wimbledons. He would have spent a considerable time at #1 but not the whole 3 last years. He'd cause many comparisons to BOrg. Andy Roddick would have had around 5 GS titles and would be a major threat on grass and HC. He'd also be much more confident and hit his FH with more authority.

Good post,that's what I think as well.Especially the Roddick part I agree with,the guy would continue to play like he did in 2004(meaning his forehand was a major weapon and one of the best on tour) and would win quite a few Wimbledons and USO IMO.

cueboyzn
06-05-2008, 04:25 AM
If Federer and Nadal did not exist, Tennis would be nowhere near as popular worldwide as it is right now. In a nutshell.

Anyone agree with me on this?

Not fulltime player
06-05-2008, 04:37 AM
Anyone agree with me on this?

I fully agree.