PDA

View Full Version : What would tennis be without Federer and Nadal?


theZig
04-13-2009, 09:37 PM
People on this forum talk all the time about how Federer or Nadal is the greatest or lamest, from shoes to boos, the fact is that this forum is obsessed with the two. My question is, what would tennis BE without the two of them? Would we consider people like Roddick or Murray to be AMAZING and rave about their GOAT possibilities? What about the game itself? Would the ATP have devolved into a convoluted form of the WTA, with all the bashing and thrashing? If the two of them went into other sports like football, and the football forums were ranting about which was the better forward, what would we here at TT boards be talking about?


Another aspect of this is; Have Federer and Nadal both contributed to how the game is played now? A lot of people agree that the change in gear contributed to the baseline style of play dominating the tour. A lot of people would also agree that the only way to beat players like Nadal and Federer are to play smart, agressive (At least tactically, as Murray shows) tennis. If those two were taken out of the question, would the baseline game with little-to-no net player be in the number 1 position? This isn't a question about whether or not Nadal or Federer are one dimensional or four dimensional, but the fact is that in order to beat the two, the game that the tour plays has changed. People came at Fed with the pure-baseline game, and he showed that he was better than they were at it, and he would volley to boot. People came at Nadal with the classical clay game of grinding and construction, but Nadal proved time and again that he was the better worker. The tour (and game) had to change. These two players made it happen.


The third, and final perspective I'll ask for is; Are Nadal and Federer their own players, or are they a product of tennis? That is to say, are Nadal and Federer the players they are because that is how they wanted to play, or is it simply the result of "This is what the game was, and they did this to beat it". To put it another way, do they define their styles, or does the tour define them? I thought about this when I watched the AO09 final and couldn't help but wonder, here we have two AMAZING players, but both play the game radically differently (Or are they all that different?). What brings about the difference. The two are obviously good, but there is no clear cut way to define "good" in tennis (Which I believe accounts for why the two have fans who seem to thrive on hating the other) other than the wins and loss record. That being said, how did these two radically different players come to be? Did they say "I am going to play THIS way and that's final!" or was it because that was how they won matches (AKA "I win when I hit this shot, so I'm going to hit that shot again)? Interesting things to think about.


I'm eager to see what others have to say. Feel free to post whatever you feel, but please refrain from personal comments about other people's OPINIONS (AKA trolling!!).

Zig.

jamesblakefan#1
04-13-2009, 09:54 PM
That is an interesting question, and I'm glad that someone (especially on here) would put some actual thought into a thread.

I think that tennis would still be in that period it was in 2003, where you had something like 3 different guys (Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt?) be #1. I think that it wouldn't be as good for the game if there weren't a clear and concise "top-level". It's good for the game now, with Fed & Nadal, 2 guys who are all time greats, but can be beaten. I think this has added interest to the game.

But if you had a situation like in the women's game, with no clear consistent #1, it would be horrible for the men's game.

As far as player's games, I still think guy's games would have evolved, just to further their standing and win matches easier. Something like coming to the net, using variety, that's done as much to "beat Federer and Nadal" as it is to shorten the points.

That's just my opinion.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 10:02 PM
Djokovic and Murray would be number 1 and 2 right now.

danb
04-13-2009, 10:10 PM
Djokovic and Murray would be number 1 and 2 right now.

Yes - we would have more or less the same love-that dislike-the-other-one discussions. Just different characters at #1 and #2.
The media would call the #1 a genius - genial sense of positioning, amazing forehand/bh etc - the whole 9 yards.
In Miami the commentators where already talking about Murray like he won some GS already, phrases like 'high tennis IQ" and all the ******** they were saying about Fed.
Same media/spectators/remarks/bandwagons - different #1/#2.

helloworld
04-13-2009, 10:30 PM
Yes - we would have more or less the same love-that dislike-the-other-one discussions. Just different characters at #1 and #2.
The media would call the #1 a genius - genial sense of positioning, amazing forehand/bh etc - the whole 9 yards.
In Miami the commentators where already talking about Murray like he won some GS already, phrases like 'high tennis IQ" and all the ******** they were saying about Fed.
Same media/spectators/remarks/bandwagons - different #1/#2.

I can already imagine the scene. Djokovic being slightly older than Murray trying to defend his stronghold at number 1 spot against his prodigious younger peer who he has been competing with since young age. Basically, we would be in a whole new era of tennis already if it weren't for Federer dominating tennis for too damn long.

Kobble
04-14-2009, 09:06 AM
Federer was good for me, otherwise you would have your ear destroyed with all the Andy Roddick (U.S., and Wimbledon Champion). Except for Safin, Agassi, and Hewitt beating Federer more times, I am content.

Fedace
04-14-2009, 09:13 AM
England would make everyday their Murray Holiday. cause he would have won wimbledon by now.

JoshDragon
04-14-2009, 09:13 AM
I can already imagine the scene. Djokovic being slightly older than Murray trying to defend his stronghold at number 1 spot against his prodigious younger peer who he has been competing with since young age. Basically, we would be in a whole new era of tennis already if it weren't for Federer dominating tennis for too damn long.

Djokovic is younger than Murray.

helloworld
04-14-2009, 10:16 AM
Djokovic is younger than Murray.

You're right!! Djokovic is 7 days younger than Murray!! lol~~ Then this would be a great rivalry since they are almost the exact same age!! :)

Tennis_Bum
04-14-2009, 10:29 AM
Tennis would have others entertaining players to watch. No big deal if Fed or Nadal would not be around. Every generation had interesting players to watch. It is not like we are going to die if we don't have them playing tennis.

ksbh
04-14-2009, 10:35 AM
It would be a game of varying skills instead of baseline bashing.

mikeler
04-14-2009, 11:21 AM
Tennis would not be as entertaining to watch, but this message board would be free of anti-Federer and anti-Nadal threads.

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 11:41 AM
I dunno but it would be more interesting. Some new damn faces winning slams. Hell Fed and Nadal have taken what 20 of the last 20 slams together? Ridiculous.

The Fed-Nadal show got old 2 years ago and its still going on. At least at the slams. No other player is in sight at the slams. So tennis needs a much needed shot in the arm as far as slams are concerned. It would be nice to finally see one other player win a damn slam or two

Serendipitous
04-14-2009, 11:42 AM
Roddick and Murray would be dominating.

devila
04-14-2009, 11:52 AM
What's ridiculous is people believing that Hewitt, Safin and Agassi are better
people than Roddick. Only the US media cares about Roddick's life and Davis Cup nonsense.

Even more bombastic is the notion that Hewitt and Ferrero are as endurable and with more potential than Roddick.

deltox
04-14-2009, 12:04 PM
well without 17 losses to fed, roddick would certainly be in better shape than he is today , that i can say with certainty

P_Agony
04-14-2009, 12:15 PM
Sometimes I feel Federer and Nadal has grown bigger than tennis itself, and I'm not sure I like that. In the past years it was only Nadal and Federer in the clay finals and grass finals, and only Federer in HC finals (speaking of slams of course). Now Federer's game has slipped and Nadal took over his spot, but it still doesn't change the fact that almost very major today has either Federer, Nadal, or both, in the final. It's as if all the players in the top 100 are a side show to these two. As much as I like Federer, I wish some others would win titles, and gladly today it seems more players are willing to fight Federer and Nadal and win titles. Players like Murray, Tsonga, Simon, Monfils, Djokovic, Del Potro all want a piece of the pie, and that's good. However, in the majors it's still Federer and Nadal's show. I really wish some of the players above will become a true force in the slams and make it more interesting for us fans.

egn
04-14-2009, 12:36 PM
I dunno but it would be more interesting. Some new damn faces winning slams. Hell Fed and Nadal have taken what 20 of the last 20 slams together? Ridiculous.

The Fed-Nadal show got old 2 years ago and its still going on. At least at the slams. No other player is in sight at the slams. So tennis needs a much needed shot in the arm as far as slams are concerned. It would be nice to finally see one other player win a damn slam or two

aww you forgot Djokovic..damn Fed and Nadal have ruined him lol.

Fed and Nadal have won since the 2005 French Open.

15 of the last 16 slams...

Yes the Nadal Fed show is a tad bit boring..without them it might have been more interesting. Guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, Coria, Davy, Djokovic, Murray and hell even Blake might have won a couple slams by now. THe number 1 ranking would be jumping around and people would probably be little attatched to a single player. The only hate threads would be between Nalby and Roddick fans cause of that 2003 US Open semi. Hewitt would probably have had a double slam year. Roddick would not look like a failure. Coria would have won a french open or two. Davy...would look like Kalfenikova and Safin would look better than Kalfenikov. Nalby..okay wait nevermind he would still be a flake and fail..but might have a few more slam finals to do it in. But yea Djokovic would have rose eariler..Murray too. OH ANCIC..That man would have a wimbledon title. <3 for Croatian tennis players.

I think it might be interesting to see that..might be a good thread.

helloworld
04-14-2009, 12:46 PM
Sometimes I feel Federer and Nadal has grown bigger than tennis itself, and I'm not sure I like that. In the past years it was only Nadal and Federer in the clay finals and grass finals, and only Federer in HC finals (speaking of slams of course). Now Federer's game has slipped and Nadal took over his spot, but it still doesn't change the fact that almost very major today has either Federer, Nadal, or both, in the final. It's as if all the players in the top 100 are a side show to these two. As much as I like Federer, I wish some others would win titles, and gladly today it seems more players are willing to fight Federer and Nadal and win titles. Players like Murray, Tsonga, Simon, Monfils, Djokovic, Del Potro all want a piece of the pie, and that's good. However, in the majors it's still Federer and Nadal's show. I really wish some of the players above will become a true force in the slams and make it more interesting for us fans.

Nobody is bigger than tennis. Nobody. Only a cocky dilluted fan would think someone is bigger than tennis, which is very disrespectful to the sport.

jamesblakefan#1
04-14-2009, 01:03 PM
Here's what the slams would have gone as, in theory,with some projections thrown in:

2003
AO-Agassi
French-Ferrero
Wimbledon-Roddick (I think he'd have beaten Phillopousis)
USO-Roddick
2004
AO-Safin (though Ferrero, Hewitt, and Nalbandian are also options, since they lost to Federer)
French-Gaudio
Wimbledon-Roddick (tho Karlovic could have made it through-he lost to Fed in Rof16)
US-Hewitt or Agassi (that probably would have been the final without Federer)
2005
AO-Safin
French-Puerta
Wimbledon-Roddick or Hewitt (that would have been the final)
USO-Agassi or Hewitt (again that would've been the final)

2006
AO-Baghdatis (or even Kiefer)
French-Ljubicic or Nalbandian
Wimbledon-Baghdatis or Ancic (he lost to Fed in the QF)
USO-Roddick
2007
AO-Gonzalez (or Roddick;lost to Fed SF)
French-Davydenko or Djokovic
Wimbledon-Gasquet or Djokovic
USO-Djokovic (or Roddick;lost to Fed QF)
2008
AO-Djokovic
French-Monfils vs. Djokovic
Wimby-Safin or Murray
USO-Djokovic vs. Murray
2009
AO-Verdasco vs Roddick

So judging by this, Roddick would probably be looked at as a top 5 player of all time. Thankfully, we have Fed and Nadal. :)

egn
04-14-2009, 01:20 PM
Here's what the slams would have gone as, in theory,with some projections thrown in:

2003
AO-Agassi
French-Ferrero
Wimbledon-Roddick (I think he'd have beaten Phillopousis)
USO-Roddick
2004
AO-Safin (though Ferrero, Hewitt, and Nalbandian are also options, since they lost to Federer)
French-Gaudio
Wimbledon-Roddick
US-Hewitt or Agassi (that probably would have been the final without Federer)
2005
AO-Safin
French-Puerta
Wimbledon-Roddick or Hewitt (that would have been the final)
USO-Agassi or Hewitt (again that would've been the final)

2006
AO-Baghdatis (or even Kiefer)
French-Ljubicic or Nalbandian
Wimbledon-Baghdatis or Ancic (he lost to Fed in the QF)
USO-Roddick
2007
AO-Gonzalez (or Roddick;lost to Fed SF)
French-Davydenko or Djokovic
Wimbledon-Gasquet or Djokovic
USO-Djokovic (or Roddick;lost to Fed QF)
2008
AO-Djokovic
French-Monfils vs. Djokovic
Wimby-Safin or Murray
USO-Djokovic vs. Murray
2009
AO-Verdasco vs Roddick

So judging by this, Roddick would probably be looked at as a top 5 player of all time. Thankfully, we have Fed and Nadal. :)

2003
AO-Agassi
French-Ferrero
Wimbledon-Roddick (I think he'd have beaten Phillopousis)
USO-Roddick
2004
AO-Safin
French-Gaudio
Wimbledon-Roddick
US-Hewitt
2005
AO-Safin
French-Coria (why so I say Coria...I think his attitude would have been different as he would have dominated probably all 3 master series without Nadal or Fed.)
Wimbledon-Hewitt (Roddick would have gotten beat Hewitt was on top.
US-Hewitt
2006
AO-Davydenko..no way do Bags or Kiefier beat Davy he was playing great until he hit Fed.
French-Nalbandian.
Wimbledon-Ancic
USO-Roddick
2007
AO-Roddick
French-Djokovic
Wimbledon-Gasquet
USO-Djokovic
2008
AO-Djokovic
French-Djokovic
Wimbledon-Ancic I am going to call Ancic on this one..Murray or Safin not at that point in time better than Ancic I feel on grass.
USO-Murray
2009
AO- Verdasco he was on fire much better than Roddick was playing.

So new slam counts would be
Roddick -5
Hewitt- 5
Safin - 3
Djokovic - 4
Ancic - 2
Gaudio - 1
Coria - 1
Davydenko - 1
Nalbandian - 1
Gasquet - 1
Murray - 1
Verdasco - 1

The draws show a lot of one slam wonders, but I think it would have changed. I think more needs to be taken into account I actually thing I am going to run it through tennis elbow later and see what I get. Simulate the years. Some things to consider.

Coria goes in 2005 French Open dominating the clay court season most likely..less pressure..feels more confident about winning..puts up better results.
Safin might not win 2005 Australian Open, Fed gave him a great match and something I think only Fed could have done. Safin might have not put in the effort like we saw in 2002. Or maybe Safin sees the chance to dominate and wins up becoming more dominant.
Roddick v. Ancic grass court rivlray might have developed..however we also would see if after mono could Ancic come back and be a threat to Roddick.
Hewitt dominates tour again is a possibility, lack of Federer, Hewitt was clearly one of the best players 04-05.
Do players have extended primes do to more motivation to stay at top?
Murray and DJokovic bloom eariler?
Djokovic wins all 4 slams possibly by 2009?
Djokovic maybe actually gets GOAT conversations around him. There is a lot to consider. I think by late 07 Djokovic might have run the tour. He could have easily won France in 07 and US Open in 07. Wimby might have even be in his reach.
Gasquet might also stay at top if he wins wimby.
Ferrer could have taken tennis more seriously..it has a lot of things to consider.

clayman2000
04-14-2009, 01:22 PM
Here's what the slams would have gone as, in theory,with some projections thrown in:

2003
AO-Agassi
French-Ferrero
Wimbledon-Roddick (I think he'd have beaten Phillopousis)
USO-Roddick
2004
AO-Safin (though Ferrero, Hewitt, and Nalbandian are also options, since they lost to Federer)
French-Gaudio
Wimbledon-Roddick (tho Karlovic could have made it through-he lost to Fed in Rof16)
US-Hewitt or Agassi (that probably would have been the final without Federer)
2005
AO-Safin
French-Puerta
Wimbledon-Roddick or Hewitt (that would have been the final)
USO-Agassi or Hewitt (again that would've been the final)

2006
AO-Baghdatis (or even Kiefer)
French-Ljubicic or Nalbandian
Wimbledon-Baghdatis or Ancic (he lost to Fed in the QF)
USO-Roddick
2007
AO-Gonzalez (or Roddick;lost to Fed SF)
French-Davydenko or Djokovic
Wimbledon-Gasquet or Djokovic
USO-Djokovic (or Roddick;lost to Fed QF)
2008
AO-Djokovic
French-Monfils vs. Djokovic
Wimby-Safin or Murray
USO-Djokovic vs. Murray
2009
AO-Verdasco vs Roddick

So judging by this, Roddick would probably be looked at as a top 5 player of all time. Thankfully, we have Fed and Nadal. :)

For Roddick you could make a case for:
Wimby 03, Wimby 04, Wimby 05, USO 06, AO 07, USO 07, AO 2009

Hewitt:
USO 2004, Wimby 05, USO 05

Agassi:
USO 2004, USO 2005

Djokovic:
FO 07, Wimby 07, USO 2007, FO 2008, USO 2008

So as you can see, Roddick could have been Maceroe level, Hewitt could have been no 1 for 4 years, and Agassi could have been a double digit slam winner

gj011
04-14-2009, 01:25 PM
For Roddick you could make a case for:
Wimby 03, Wimby 04, Wimby 05, USO 06, AO 07, USO 07, AO 2009

Hewitt:
USO 2004, Wimby 05, USO 05

Agassi:
USO 2004, USO 2005

Djokovic:
FO 07, Wimby 07, USO 2007, FO 2008, USO 2008

So as you can see, Roddick could have been Maceroe level, Hewitt could have been no 1 for 4 years, and Agassi could have been a double digit slam winner

And Djokovic would have had 6 slam titles and career grand slam already. Nice dreaming :)

egn
04-14-2009, 01:27 PM
And Djokovic would have had 6 slam titles and career grand slam already. Nice dreaming :)

without fed and nadal it is possible. I think without Fed and Nadal Djokovic right now would be on his way to GOAT.

gj011
04-14-2009, 01:30 PM
without fed and nadal it is possible. I think without Fed and Nadal Djokovic right now would be on his way to GOAT.

Yes I know, but take two or one dominant players from any era and you would have an instant GOAT among the rest.

That is why I would never consider Graf the GOAT of women's tennis.

egn
04-14-2009, 01:34 PM
Yes I know, but take two or one dominant players from any era and you would have an instant GOAT among the rest.

That is why I would never consider Graf the GOAT of women's tennis.

yes but see seles existed..if fed and nadal never played we would never know if they were dominant or not

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 01:45 PM
The Sampras Agassi situation was just perfect. It never got old IMO. Around clay court time, the clay specialists would come out to shine, and you never knew who was going to win the AO. Sampras usually had Wimby and USO on the lockdown but Agassi was always in the mix except for those 3 years. But other than that it was nice. Agassi and Sampras racked up the slams but there were always other threats at the slams which was a nice change of pace at times.


It would be nice to see some of that today. Djoker and Murray grabbing some slams from Fed and Nadal. Maybe even a long shot grabbing a slam. You just never see that anymore. Fed and nadal have been TOO DOMINANT. LOL!!!

It would be nice to see 6-7 faces interjecting those slams instead the same old 2 or 3.

egn
04-14-2009, 01:48 PM
The Sampras Agassi situation was just perfect. It never got old IMO. Around clay court time, the clay specialists would come out to shine, and you never knew who was going to win the AO. Sampras usually had Wimby and USO on the lockdown but Agassi was always in the mix except for those 3 years. But other than that it was nice. Agassi and Sampras racked up the slams but there were always other threats at the slams which was a nice change of pace at times.


It would be nice to see some of that today. Djoker and Murray grabbing some slams from Fed and Nadal. Maybe even a long shot grabbing a slam. You just never see that anymore. Fed and nadal have been TOO DOMINANT. LOL!!!

It would be nice to see 6-7 faces interjecting those slams instead the same old 2 or 3.

Whats funny is the fact that they are so dominate is only hurting each other, it makes it look like nobody else is playing.

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 01:49 PM
Whats funny is the fact that they are so dominate is only hurting each other, it makes it look like nobody else is playing.

LOL.. true true. Weird how that works isnt it?

egn
04-14-2009, 01:51 PM
LOL.. true true. Weird how that works isnt it?

It's almost as if they should have let themselves lose once or twice more and worked on making their careers longer. Imagine that Nadal calls Fed: Hey lose today this way there is somebody else to play in the finals so I can have beaten another good clay courter..Fed: okay but I get the French Open in 2010..Nadal:deal as long as I get AO 2009.

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 01:56 PM
It's almost as if they should have let themselves lose once or twice more and worked on making their careers longer. Imagine that Nadal calls Fed: Hey lose today this way there is somebody else to play in the finals so I can have beaten another good clay courter..Fed: okay but I get the French Open in 2010..Nadal:deal as long as I get AO 2009.

Yea so they trade slams. Nadal lets Fed get the French or two and Fed.... Well I would say Fed lets Nadal get a USO but Nadal fails to reach the finals there each year. At the end of the day both could have Career slams and both break the record if they wanted to. Thats crazy just to think about it.


Are they that good.. Or everyone else that bad. Talk about lopsided

JoshDragon
04-14-2009, 01:58 PM
The Sampras Agassi situation was just perfect. It never got old IMO. Around clay court time, the clay specialists would come out to shine, and you never knew who was going to win the AO. Sampras usually had Wimby and USO on the lockdown but Agassi was always in the mix except for those 3 years. But other than that it was nice. Agassi and Sampras racked up the slams but there were always other threats at the slams which was a nice change of pace at times.


It would be nice to see some of that today. Djoker and Murray grabbing some slams from Fed and Nadal. Maybe even a long shot grabbing a slam. You just never see that anymore. Fed and nadal have been TOO DOMINANT. LOL!!!

It would be nice to see 6-7 faces interjecting those slams instead the same old 2 or 3.

Maybe if you were a Sampras fan, not so much if you were a fan of Andre. As you said Sampras had a lock-down on Wimbledon and was a heavy favorite at the US Open (more so than Andre.) Andre was a heavy favorite at the Australian but had erratic results at the other majors. His h2h against Pete at Wimbledon and the US was poor. He lost too many of their important matches.

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 02:00 PM
Maybe if you were a Sampras fan, not so much if you were a fan of Andre. As you said Sampras had a lock-down on Wimbledon and was a heavy favorite at the US Open (more so than Andre.) Andre was a heavy favorite at the Australian but had erratic results at the other majors. His h2h against Pete at Wimbledon and the US was poor. He lost too many of their important matches.

The thing is though.. I think thats part Andre's fault. He didnt play the AO for many years which I dont get, because it was his best surface and when he was on his game he couldnt lose there. Even Pete couldnt beat Andre at the AO. Andre should have more slams just based on the AO alone

Cesc Fabregas
04-14-2009, 02:02 PM
The thing is though.. I think thats part Andre's fault. He didnt play the AO for many years which I dont get, because it was his best surface and when he was on his game he couldnt lose there. Even Pete couldnt beat Andre at the AO. Andre should have more slams just based on the AO alone

Even if Andre went to the AO early on his career I don't think he would have won Courier owned him in the early 90's.

JoshDragon
04-14-2009, 02:07 PM
The thing is though.. I think thats part Andre's fault. He didnt play the AO for many years which I dont get, because it was his best surface and when he was on his game he couldnt lose there. Even Pete couldnt beat Andre at the AO. Andre should have more slams just based on the AO alone

Pete, definitely could have beaten Andre at the AO, I think he was unlucky that he didn't get it in 2000. Pete was up 2 sets to 1, in a tie break and was very close to pulling it off. It's one of the few times that Pete failed to rise to the occasion.

Andre, was never close to beating Pete at Wimbledon or the US. The best he was able to do was extend it to a four set loss.

devila
04-14-2009, 02:16 PM
Thank goodness, life's about personality and respect. Things Federer lacks more than Roddick does. Federer is so big in tennis. LOL

Andyk028
04-14-2009, 02:39 PM
Djokovic would be even more arrogant..Davydenko's name would be bigger..Roddick would be loved by all of us Americans...Murray would only have like one slam because he only improved his game like last year.

Andyk028
04-14-2009, 02:44 PM
It's almost as if they should have let themselves lose once or twice more and worked on making their careers longer. Imagine that Nadal calls Fed: Hey lose today this way there is somebody else to play in the finals so I can have beaten another good clay courter..Fed: okay but I get the French Open in 2010..Nadal:deal as long as I get AO 2009.

spectators believed that the Williams sister basically do this after last years wimbledon right?

Patrick_St
04-14-2009, 02:45 PM
It wouldn't be as entertaining in my opinion. The Federer vs. Nadal rivalry is one of, if not the best rivalry in sports right now. I look forward to majors hoping we will see what has become the typical final match up Federer vs. Nadal. Wimbledon 08 was epic, and probably the most entertaining sporting event I have personally ever watched.

egn
04-14-2009, 02:52 PM
Yea so they trade slams. Nadal lets Fed get the French or two and Fed.... Well I would say Fed lets Nadal get a USO but Nadal fails to reach the finals there each year. At the end of the day both could have Career slams and both break the record if they wanted to. Thats crazy just to think about it.


Are they that good.. Or everyone else that bad. Talk about lopsided

Lol that would be interesting. Would make for great drama.

Serendipitous
04-14-2009, 02:58 PM
Without Federer, who would Roddick play against? :):)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfGpt-0ncc

jamesblakefan#1
04-14-2009, 02:59 PM
Would Americans be more interested if, say Roddick had 6 slams and 3 Wimbledons? Wouldn't every tourney Roddick played be highlighted, not like it is now with only the slams?

There's no doubt that if there were no Fed & Rafa, the game would be bigger here in America. This is no fault of Fed or Rafa, just a biased US media.

Mastadon_10S
04-14-2009, 02:59 PM
Without Federer, who would Roddick play against? :):)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfGpt-0ncc

and who would he get beat by so often? Most of the time anyway...

jamesblakefan#1
04-14-2009, 03:00 PM
Without Federer, who would Roddick play against? :):)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfGpt-0ncc

You mean lose against? I dunno, Pong has a pretty good inside out backhand, IMO. :)

GameSampras
04-14-2009, 03:01 PM
Would Americans be more interested if, say Roddick had 6 slams and 3 Wimbledons? Wouldn't every tourney Roddick played be highlighted, not like it is now with only the slams?

There's no doubt that if there were no Fed & Rafa, the game would be bigger here in America. This is no fault of Fed or Rafa, just a biased US media.



Nahh.. Even us americans dont like Roddick :twisted: Maybe Donald Young or Querry. Americans need someone with a degree of professionalism and class representing us.. Not Andy "Whiny prissy, primadonna" Roddick who is making a name for himself by insulting linesman and umps

P_Agony
04-14-2009, 03:01 PM
Nobody is bigger than tennis. Nobody. Only a cocky dilluted fan would think someone is bigger than tennis, which is very disrespectful to the sport.

Have you even read the post? I said it's a bad thing. Sorry, but it's true. Tennis for the past few years has been all about Federer and Nadal. My post was an opinion, and I am neither cocky nor dilluted. Relax with you replies buddy.

jamesblakefan#1
04-14-2009, 03:05 PM
Nahh.. Even us americans dont like Roddick :twisted: Maybe Donald Young or Querry. Americans need someone with a degree of professionalism and class representing us.. Not Andy "Whiny prissy, primadonna" Roddick who is making a name for himself by insulting linesman and umps

I'm not saying that more people would like him, just the game would be covered more here. And Roddick probably wouldn't be as big of an ***** if he had 6 slams.

egn
04-14-2009, 03:18 PM
Nahh.. Even us americans dont like Roddick :twisted: Maybe Donald Young or Querry. Americans need someone with a degree of professionalism and class representing us.. Not Andy "Whiny prissy, primadonna" Roddick who is making a name for himself by insulting linesman and umps

Yea Americans would rather see Blake win a slam than Roddick. Blake is respectful, funny, and a great guy. I am not sure about Donald Young but Querrey definitely. Actually wait Young over Roddick probably just because Young isn't the problem its his parents.

All-rounder
04-14-2009, 04:04 PM
welcome to the WTA

helloworld
04-14-2009, 04:14 PM
Have you even read the post? I said it's a bad thing. Sorry, but it's true. Tennis for the past few years has been all about Federer and Nadal. My post was an opinion, and I am neither cocky nor dilluted. Relax with you replies buddy.
So you really think Federer and Nadal are bigger than tennis itself? Then you're cocky and dilluted buddy.

helloworld
04-14-2009, 04:16 PM
I'm not saying that more people would like him, just the game would be covered more here. And Roddick probably wouldn't be as big of an ***** if he had 6 slams.

Without Federer and Nadal, he's still not going to win 6 slams. I see him winning 1 or 2 Wimbledon, 1 more USO, 1 AO, and I'm being nice here.

Tennis_Bum
04-14-2009, 04:21 PM
Yea Americans would rather see Blake win a slam than Roddick. Blake is respectful, funny, and a great guy. I am not sure about Donald Young but Querrey definitely. Actually wait Young over Roddick probably just because Young isn't the problem its his parents.

Speak for yourself. Blake is not all what he seems but I don't like Roddick either. Roddick is a punk with a really hard serve that lacks disguise.

Of course Fed and Nadal are no angels either, but when they play good tennis, they are entertaining to watch. But if they don't exist, there certainly will be many others who can entertain us. Those two are not superhuman beings.

Currently, American players don't have a lot to be desired. Sam Querrey is a nice guy but as for tennis goes, he won't do anything big. Not that I am rooting against him; I am just being realistic.

Serendipitous
04-14-2009, 05:07 PM
roddick will only be dominating at Mcdonald's for his flipping burger skill. :oops:

LMAO!!! :twisted:


But seriously, though.....why not? Roddick has always been a contender for slams, and if you factor out Nadal and Federer.......

Serendipitous
04-14-2009, 05:10 PM
what's so funny? it's the truth. :-?


Just give me one reason why Roddick wouldn't be enjoying better results if Federer and Nadal's parents had had abortions.

devila
04-14-2009, 06:08 PM
Blake, great, funny and nice...lmao

This guy was so cordial and satisfied (grinning before he served for the match vs. Gonzo) at the Davis Cup tie
he lost, and he also laughed with his daddy Pat McEnroe because he thought it was hilarious to escape a tiebreak; he was leading 5-1. Then, he barely escaped 2 match points, which saved USA from losing vs. France.
Blake would have less than 50% chance of whipping Mike Llodra. Bryans were dominated by Clement in doubles. I'd love to see loud dad Wayne's smug face. LOL After gloating in the Olympics, Blake *******ed an excuse for Federer "he had a bad day", then accused Gonzalez of being deceitful in their match. I'd love to watch Blake's lips quivering after beating Gonzalez in a Slam....LMAO

devila
04-14-2009, 06:16 PM
Just give me one reason why Roddick wouldn't be enjoying better results if Federer and Nadal's parents had had abortions. I wouldn't care about spoiled, sobbing troll Federer's overrated, protected image. Boring, overhyped and sore loser...throws bottles, racquets, tells the umpire to pay attention while Simon beats him, and always insults opponents. Perfect gentleman Fed got over his cute tantrums, indeed.

jamesblakefan#1
04-14-2009, 06:51 PM
Blake, great, funny and nice...lmao

This guy was so cordial and satisfied (grinning before he served for the match vs. Gonzo) at the Davis Cup tie
he lost, and he also laughed with his daddy Pat McEnroe because he thought it was hilarious to escape a tiebreak; he was leading 5-1. Then, he barely escaped 2 match points, which saved USA from losing vs. France.
Blake would have less than 50% chance of whipping Mike Llodra. Bryans were dominated by Clement in doubles. I'd love to see loud dad Wayne's smug face. LOL After gloating in the Olympics, Blake *******ed an excuse for Federer "he had a bad day", then accused Gonzalez of being deceitful in their match. I'd love to watch Blake's lips quivering after beating Gonzalez in a Slam....LMAO

What the heck is this all about?

theZig
04-15-2009, 10:01 AM
It's nice to see that people are having a discussion about the topic rather than calling each other names and the sort. While I agree that many of us would probably be talking about Djokovic and Murray NOW, what would we have been talking about during the years Fed dominated? Some have said it'd be the WTA, others say we would just talk about Roddick/hewitt/etc.

tangerine
04-15-2009, 10:11 AM
People said the same thing when Laver/Rosewall retired....

when Connors/McEnroe/Borg retired....

when Becker/Edberg/Lendl retired....

then Sampras/Agassi retired....

Each generation brings its own unique talent and interesting cast of characters.

As with past generations, tennis will survive when Federer/Nadal retire.

tvp900
04-15-2009, 04:44 PM
Here's what the slams would have gone as, in theory,with some projections thrown in:

2003
AO-Agassi
French-Ferrero
Wimbledon-Roddick (I think he'd have beaten Phillopousis)
USO-Roddick
2004
AO-Safin (though Ferrero, Hewitt, and Nalbandian are also options, since they lost to Federer)
French-Gaudio
Wimbledon-Roddick (tho Karlovic could have made it through-he lost to Fed in Rof16)
US-Hewitt or Agassi (that probably would have been the final without Federer)
2005
AO-Safin
French-Puerta
Wimbledon-Roddick or Hewitt (that would have been the final)
USO-Agassi or Hewitt (again that would've been the final)

2006
AO-Baghdatis (or even Kiefer)
French-Ljubicic or Nalbandian
Wimbledon-Baghdatis or Ancic (he lost to Fed in the QF)
USO-Roddick
2007
AO-Gonzalez (or Roddick;lost to Fed SF)
French-Davydenko or Djokovic
Wimbledon-Gasquet or Djokovic
USO-Djokovic (or Roddick;lost to Fed QF)
2008
AO-Djokovic
French-Monfils vs. Djokovic
Wimby-Safin or Murray
USO-Djokovic vs. Murray
2009
AO-Verdasco vs Roddick

So judging by this, Roddick would probably be looked at as a top 5 player of all time. Thankfully, we have Fed and Nadal. :)

I totally agree with you, but you have to figure that people like Roddick would have more confidence and probably would have made more finals and wins but based on the draws of the tournaments, I think that's about right.

ksbh
04-16-2009, 08:58 AM
The next time James Blake is injured and on the sidelines, send him a get-well card and he'll worship you like a demi-god, just as he does to Federer.

Blake is the biggest loser there ever was!

Blake, great, funny and nice...lmao

This guy was so cordial and satisfied (grinning before he served for the match vs. Gonzo) at the Davis Cup tie
he lost, and he also laughed with his daddy Pat McEnroe because he thought it was hilarious to escape a tiebreak; he was leading 5-1. Then, he barely escaped 2 match points, which saved USA from losing vs. France.
Blake would have less than 50% chance of whipping Mike Llodra. Bryans were dominated by Clement in doubles. I'd love to see loud dad Wayne's smug face. LOL After gloating in the Olympics, Blake *******ed an excuse for Federer "he had a bad day", then accused Gonzalez of being deceitful in their match. I'd love to watch Blake's lips quivering after beating Gonzalez in a Slam....LMAO

Clydey2times
04-16-2009, 05:01 PM
England would make everyday their Murray Holiday. cause he would have won wimbledon by now.

Not Scotland? At least Say "Great Britain".