PDA

View Full Version : How many slams for Federer?


YodaKnowsBest
04-09-2011, 03:57 AM
How many slams would Federer have won if he had to face prime Djokovic and Nadal during his era? (2004-2007)

tennis_pro
04-09-2011, 04:01 AM
11.

10 chars

Sentinel
04-09-2011, 04:40 AM
None. Lucky to be playing after Sampras and before Nofa.

But btw, when do you start counting Rafa's prime, and Nole's prime. After they won their first slam, or only after Roger's last slam. :D

Pls furnish exact month and year or Rafa's prime.

What if Nole does not win a slam for another year. Will Nole's prime then be postponed for next year again ???

tennis_pro
04-09-2011, 05:03 AM
None. Lucky to be playing after Sampras and before Nofa.

But btw, when do you start counting Rafa's prime, and Nole's prime. After they won their first slam, or only after Roger's last slam. :D

Pls furnish exact month and year or Rafa's prime.

What if Nole does not win a slam for another year. Will Nole's prime then be postponed for next year again ???

Haha lol at that one. Djokovic's prime is clearly the first half of 2008 and the first half of 2011. Didn't you know that?

YodaKnowsBest
04-09-2011, 07:27 AM
None. Lucky to be playing after Sampras and before Nofa.

But btw, when do you start counting Rafa's prime, and Nole's prime. After they won their first slam, or only after Roger's last slam. :D


Rafa's prime 2010. Nole's prime 2011. :)

NoneWhat if Nole does not win a slam for another year. Will Nole's prime then be postponed for next year again ???

If the King doesn't win another slam this year then it could only mean:

1. Murray has finaly woken up.
2. The King was not 100%
3. Nadal was lucky.

The-Champ
04-09-2011, 07:37 AM
I don't know how many slams fed would have won but I know Djokovic would NOT win any slam.

kishnabe
04-09-2011, 07:37 AM
Federer wins 5 more slams....but not as dominant in paths.

Sentinel
04-09-2011, 07:37 AM
Rafa's prime 2010. Nole's prime 2011. :)



If the King doesn't win another slam this year then it could only mean:

1. Murray has finaly woken up.
2. The King was not 100%
3. Nadal was lucky.
RAFA Prime 2010: So Federer did win his AO 2010 during Rafa;s prime. Or did Rafa's prime start the day the AO was over ?

So Rafa won all those slams when he was not in prime. Okay, great for someone not in prime!

NOLE PRIME 2011: So when Nole won AO 2008, Rafa was NOT in prime. Lucky Nole.
Again when Nole won AO 2011, Rafa was injured, so not in prime. Both Nole's slams came when Rafa was not in prime.

So can we ask how many slams Nole would have won if Rafa was in prime since 2008 ??? :):)

The-Champ
04-09-2011, 07:39 AM
Djoker might beat peak Nadal on HC but Peak fed obliterates any djokovic on HC and grass.

Sentinel
04-09-2011, 07:40 AM
Federer wins 5 more slams....but not as dominant in paths.
Seriously ??? :confused::confused:
Which ones ? Mostly French i would guess since clay is not Nole's best surface ?


hehe, kidding, which ones seriously ?

Tennis sensation
04-09-2011, 07:51 AM
If the King doesn't win another slam this year then it could only mean:

1. Murray has finaly woken up.
2. The King was not 100%
3. Nadal was lucky.

What? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

YodaKnowsBest
04-09-2011, 07:52 AM
Senti you're not supposed to ask difficult questions. ;p

RAFA Prime 2010: So Federer did win his AO 2010 during Rafa;s prime. Or did Rafa's prime start the day the AO was over ?

Nadal was injured. :(

So Rafa won all those slams when he was not in prime. Okay, great for someone not in prime!

Nadal is great no doubt about that. :mrgreen:

NOLE PRIME 2011: So when Nole won AO 2008, [B]Rafa was NOT in prime. Lucky Nole.

Neither was Nole. ;) Federer was the one in prime and got beaten. That's what matters the most.


Again when Nole won AO 2011, Rafa was injured, so not in prime. Both Nole's slams came when Rafa was not in prime.


Are you saying that Nadal wasn't 100%? if so, neither was Djokovic, because of astma that prevents the King from being 100% all the time. :twisted:

So can we ask how many slams Nole would have won if Rafa was in prime since 2008 ???

None, because Nadal is never 100%... ( quality slams wich we only count in TW)

Tennis sensation
04-09-2011, 08:18 AM
Senti you're not supposed to ask difficult questions. ;p



Nadal was injured. :(



Nadal is great no doubt about that. :mrgreen:



Neither was Nole. ;) Federer was the one in prime and got beaten. That's what matters the most.




Are you saying that Nadal wasn't 100%? if so, neither was Djokovic, because of astma that prevents the King from being 100% all the time. :twisted:



None, because Nadal is never 100%... ( quality slams wich we only count in TW)

You are wrong. Federer was not in his prime in 2008.

nikdom
04-09-2011, 08:26 AM
Fed would have had 16 slams and djokovic's ***.

tenis1
04-09-2011, 09:05 AM
Realistically, Federer is a very good player and would still have an excellent career with between 6 and 8 GS titles. Comparable to McEnroe, Wilander, Becker or Edberg for example who played in hard 80s era.

nikdom
04-09-2011, 09:11 AM
Realistically, Federer is a very good player and would still have an excellent career with between 6 and 8 GS titles. Comparable to McEnroe, Wilander, Becker or Edberg for example who played in hard 80s era.

Love it when a hypothetical, time travel scenario is described beginning with 'realistically'.

:)

NadalAgassi
04-09-2011, 09:13 AM
About 12 probably. Nadal has already taken many slams from Federer as it is. He would probably take an additional 2 Wimbledons. As for hard courts prime Federer is definitely better on hard courts, Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer even on hard courts but even in his prime is having trouble reaching major hard court finals regularly. I would say Nadal and Djokovic combined could take 2 hard court slams from Federer if lucky.

I agree that Djokovic might win 0 slams if he had to play Federer and Nadal in their primes both at the same times. I am not sure about his ability to beat them back to back in a best of 5, even on hard courts.

jackson vile
04-09-2011, 09:20 AM
None. Lucky to be playing after Sampras and before Nofa.

But btw, when do you start counting Rafa's prime, and Nole's prime. After they won their first slam, or only after Roger's last slam. :D

Pls furnish exact month and year or Rafa's prime.

What if Nole does not win a slam for another year. Will Nole's prime then be postponed for next year again ???


Instead look at peak, when those players had their best years.

We know that Nadal can beat Roger at Wim and FO consistently.

And we know that Novak can beat Roger at AO and USO consistently.

The slams would be a hole lot more evenly distributed.

T1000
04-09-2011, 09:23 AM
Instead look at peak, when those players had their best years.

We know that Nadal can beat Roger at Wim and FO consistently.

And we know that Novak can beat Roger at AO and USO consistently.

The slams would be a hole lot more evenly distributed.

Wait so Nadal only beating Federer once at Wimbledon and Djokovic only beating Federer once at the USO despite Federer beating both of them multiple times at those respective slams means that Federer will lose consistently at those two slams? And when both wins came when Fed wasn't even in his prime any more? Ok that's believable

jackson vile
04-09-2011, 09:26 AM
Wait so Nadal only beating Federer once at Wimbledon and Djokovic only beating Federer once at the USO despite Federer beating both of them multiple times at those respective slams means that Federer will lose consistently at those two slams? And when both wins came when Fed wasn't even in his prime any more? Ok that's believable

Novak beat # 3,2,1 all in a row on hard courts.


Also you ignorant comment can be used as counter also.


IE Roger winning his slams where when neither Novak nore Nadal were in their primes.

NadalAgassi
04-09-2011, 09:28 AM
There is no evidence of Djokovics ability to beat even a post prime Federer at the U.S Open consistently, let alone a prime Federer.

jackson vile
04-09-2011, 09:37 AM
There is no evidence of Djokovics ability to beat even a post prime Federer at the U.S Open consistently, let alone a prime Federer.

Really so Novak beating world # 3,2,1 all in a row on HC is indicative of zero? Also Novak beating Roger at AO and Novak's USO was no slowch not to mention his WTF.

All the while we all know that Novak was changing strings, rackets, dealing with his parents BS.

The greatest part is that Novak did all that while all this BS was going on, and..... Novak was not even at his peak. We actually have yet to see Novak's peak years.

rainingaces
04-09-2011, 09:40 AM
This is as close to "prime" as both of them were when they played each other I would say and look what happened.
All the talk of players being in there prime is bs, current form and confidence has more to do with good winning streaks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJkUW_XbCVE

tenis1
04-09-2011, 09:46 AM
This is as close to "prime" as both of them were when they played each other I would say and look what happened.
All the talk of players being in there prime is bs, current form and confidence has more to do with good winning streaks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJkUW_XbCVE

LOL Djokovic is far from his best and nowhere near his prime here. Failed attempt.

tenis1
04-09-2011, 09:47 AM
Really so Novak beating world # 3,2,1 all in a row on HC is indicative of zero? Also Novak beating Roger at AO and Novak's USO was no slowch not to mention his WTF.

All the while we all know that Novak was changing strings, rackets, dealing with his parents BS.

The greatest part is that Novak did all that while all this BS was going on, and..... Novak was not even at his peak. We actually have yet to see Novak's peak years.

Very good post. Very good indeed.

Rhythm Man
04-09-2011, 09:51 AM
How many slams would Federer have won if he had to face prime Djokovic and Nadal during his era? (2004-2007)

I'd like to tweak the question a bit and ask how many slams would Federer be winning NOW if Djokovic and Nadal were in their prime in '04-07? He might have won fewer back then but I think he would have won more recently because I don't think Djokovic and Nadal would still be in their prime had their prime been in 04-07. So I say he has 16 either way.

tennis_pro
04-09-2011, 10:03 AM
I'd like to tweak the question a bit and ask how many slams would Federer be winning NOW if Djokovic and Nadal were in their prime in '04-07? He might have won fewer back then but I think he would have won more recently because I don't think Djokovic and Nadal would still be in their prime had their prime been in 04-07. So I say he has 16 either way.

Federer has won 12 Slams since Nadal won his first back in 2005. 12 Slams.

Federer has won (beating him twice on hard court Slams in STRAIGHT SETS in 2007 - AO and the USO) 7 Slams since Djokovic first showed up in early 2007. 7 Slams.

Federer has won twice as many Slams as Djokovic won in his career since Djokovic won the Australian Open back in 2008, let's not forget Federer's age has been 27 or older.

rainingaces
04-09-2011, 10:54 AM
Lets turn this on its head shall we?

If Federer was still playing in his prime through to 2011 which he couldn't do due to off court distractions like starting a family, how many slams would nole and nadal have? I say Nadal 7 and Nole 0.

This is a silly discussion.

MethodTennis
04-09-2011, 11:32 AM
either 1 3 5 or 7 imo

powerangle
04-09-2011, 12:45 PM
How many slams would Federer have won if he had to face prime Djokovic and Nadal during his era? (2004-2007)

About the same, not much more or less, imo.

Djokovic has only beaten Federer at slams when Federer was out of his prime (out of 2004 -2007 era, as you yourself stated). But of course Djokovic was still developing back then. So if you pit prime Federer against prime Djokovic..who knows? I still think prime Federer on hard courts is > prime Djokovic on hard courts. So not much change here.

Rafa only gave Roger trouble on grass when Roger was in his prime (FO would be a shut out in favor of Rafa), but Roger would still win more than lose on grass against Rafa, imo. When Roger lost to Rafa in 2008, it was already out of Roger's prime (out of the 2004-2007 era, as stated by you). Yes Rafa may not have fully come into his own on grass before 2008. So again who knows. But I believe Roger would have a decent advantage on grass. As for USO, I don't think Rafa would beat Roger when both are at their best on fast hardcourts. At AO, Roger was insane during his peak years, but I can see a prime Rafa getting one from Roger if Rafa were at his best during that period.

So maybe 14-16 slams for Federer.

kishnabe
04-09-2011, 12:45 PM
Seriously ??? :confused::confused:
Which ones ? Mostly French i would guess since clay is not Nole's best surface ?


hehe, kidding, which ones seriously ?

1 AO, 2 W, 2 US

NadalAgassi
04-09-2011, 02:11 PM
I do think many of you underestimate what a tough opponent for Federer that Nadal would be on grass with both in their primes. The 2007 match even though Federer won he was destroyed all match long from the baseline and in many ways outplayed despite winning. It took a career serving performance, fighting off so many break points, and essentially winning all the big points (some by great play, some by Nadal errors) which isnt typical of their matches, in order to narrowly pull out the win. And that wasnt even Nadal really quite at his best yet, and it was Federer still in his prime or closer than Nadal. With both in their primes Nadal would be an extremely difficult opponent for Federer on todays slowed down grass.

powerangle
04-09-2011, 02:25 PM
I'd like to tweak the question a bit and ask how many slams would Federer be winning NOW if Djokovic and Nadal were in their prime in '04-07? He might have won fewer back then but I think he would have won more recently because I don't think Djokovic and Nadal would still be in their prime had their prime been in 04-07. So I say he has 16 either way.

I agree with this as well. I was just thinking about this. Federer probably would have won a couple fewer slams had Nadal and Djokovic been in their primes back in 2004-2007 (only a couple fewer, with reasons I have stated in another post of mine above)...but Nadal and Djokovic would probably have won a couple fewer post-2007 as well, since they would likely be out of prime these days if their prime was in 2004-2007.

Those post-2007 narrow Fed losses to Nadal could have gone the other way (Wim 2008, AO 2009). And a post-prime Federer maybe would take out a post-prime Djokovic and Nadal at USO 2010 to win that major, and a post-prime Federer maybe could take out a post-prime Djokovic at AO 2011 to win that one too.

So in the end, it all balances out somewhat.

PCXL-Fan
04-09-2011, 02:46 PM
Keep in mind that they would be declining around the same period. They would all be around the same age give or take a year.

Sid_Vicious
04-09-2011, 02:51 PM
23.

10 char.

World Beater
04-09-2011, 03:44 PM
federer probably has another 2-3 in him..

his level isnt too far below nadal/djokovic at the moment.

its the important pts eluding him...sooner or later he will figure it out. it might take a couple more tough losses, but at some point federere will realize the way he needs to play these guys.

NadalAgassi
04-09-2011, 06:35 PM
I cant imagine Federer winning any slams after 2012, even if he continues to play. So that leaves another 5 chances of slams only since the French Open is no chance from here. I think he will do well if he wins 1 more, 2 more would be exceptional.

Sentinel
04-09-2011, 08:53 PM
Lets turn this on its head shall we?

If Federer was still playing in his prime through to 2011 which he couldn't do due to off court distractions like starting a family, how many slams would nole and nadal have? I say Nadal 7 and Nole 0.

This is a silly discussion.
Ouch! I don't think the OP and other rebel forces are open minded enough to look at it this way !

single_handed_champion
04-09-2011, 09:07 PM
None. Lucky to be playing after Sampras and before Nofa.

But btw, when do you start counting Rafa's prime, and Nole's prime. After they won their first slam, or only after Roger's last slam. :D

Pls furnish exact month and year or Rafa's prime.

What if Nole does not win a slam for another year. Will Nole's prime then be postponed for next year again ???

Rafa's prime Monte Carlo 2010 and all straight set matches of W+USO, and definitely not MMs like Shanghai, Bangkok, AO, IW, Miami.

Nole's prime, 2011 thus far, 2008 until Miami. Black hole during 2009, 2010 except wins over Federer/Nadal.

Federer's prime: all wins over Roddick, Hewitt, 2006 W and RG 1st sets against Nadal, 2010 WTF 3rd set after saving BPs against Nadal.

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 12:04 PM
About the same, not much more or less, imo.

Djokovic has only beaten Federer at slams when Federer was out of his prime (out of 2004 -2007 era, as you yourself stated). But of course Djokovic was still developing back then. So if you pit prime Federer against prime Djokovic..who knows? I still think prime Federer on hard courts is > prime Djokovic on hard courts. So not much change here.

Rafa only gave Roger trouble on grass when Roger was in his prime (FO would be a shut out in favor of Rafa), but Roger would still win more than lose on grass against Rafa, imo. When Roger lost to Rafa in 2008, it was already out of Roger's prime (out of the 2004-2007 era, as stated by you). Yes Rafa may not have fully come into his own on grass before 2008. So again who knows. But I believe Roger would have a decent advantage on grass. As for USO, I don't think Rafa would beat Roger when both are at their best on fast hardcourts. At AO, Roger was insane during his peak years, but I can see a prime Rafa getting one from Roger if Rafa were at his best during that period.

So maybe 14-16 slams for Federer.

I think you misunderstood what I meant with Fed era. For a example, one can dominate, but it does not necessarily mean he's in prime. Federer didn't have to break a sweat against the likes of Roddick.
I believe Federer is still in his prime, but due to the current field it is not noticeable.

tennis_pro
04-10-2011, 01:01 PM
I think you misunderstood what I meant with Fed era. For a example, one can dominate, but it does not necessarily mean he's in prime. Federer didn't have to break a sweat against the likes of Roddick.
I believe Federer is still in his prime, but due to the current field it is not noticeable.

Wait and see what Djokovic (and Nadal) does when he's 30. Only after you see him play 6 years from now you can write your bulls***.

There's no comparison. Federer dominated everyone on faster surfaces in 2004-2007 for a reason, Djokovic or not Djokovic the guy was just way too good on hard and grass courts.

cc0509
04-10-2011, 01:19 PM
I think you misunderstood what I meant with Fed era. For a example, one can dominate, but it does not necessarily mean he's in prime. Federer didn't have to break a sweat against the likes of Roddick.
I believe Federer is still in his prime, but due to the current field it is not noticeable.

Oh Yoda, no, just STOP already! Ever hear of the saying, quit while you are ahead?

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Wait and see what Djokovic (and Nadal) does when he's 30. Only after you see him play 6 years from now you can write your bulls***.

There's no comparison. Federer dominated everyone on faster surfaces in 2004-2007 for a reason, Djokovic or not Djokovic the guy was just way too good on hard and grass courts.

Weak era? :confused:

Bobby Jr
04-10-2011, 03:23 PM
Instead look at peak, when those players had their best years.

We know that Nadal can beat Roger at Wim and FO consistently.

And we know that Novak can beat Roger at AO and USO consistently.

The slams would be a hole lot more evenly distributed.
We do? From my recollection Federer has beaten Nadal at Wimbledon 66% of the time and Nole at hard court slams 57% of the time.

I think people greatly overestimate the relative abilities of some players had they played the other in their peak. We can't say the results would be so clear... an example of this is reliability during all rounds of a slam. Sampras, for example, is a GOAT contender but, even with Federer in his draws, he would still not be getting past the 4rd round or earlier as he did at least once in every year of his prime (92-99) other than 93. So it's no given whatsoever Sampras and Federer meet very often given Pete's far, far poorer consistency at slams.

Likewise, if Federer was play in that era - is Nadal there too? Because if not he likely made up for a few Wimbledon losses to Pete with additional wins at the French or Aussie Open.

Marius_Hancu
04-10-2011, 03:33 PM
BS OP and poll about non-reality

Bobby Jr
04-10-2011, 03:47 PM
BS OP and poll about non-reality
Yep. ^

How many times do we have to do threads on things which serve only to become examples of flawed logic and selective use of stats?

Breaker
04-10-2011, 03:49 PM
I think you misunderstood what I meant with Fed era. For a example, one can dominate, but it does not necessarily mean he's in prime. Federer didn't have to break a sweat against the likes of Roddick.
I believe Federer is still in his prime, but due to the current field it is not noticeable.

Roddick who has a winning head to head over the 'king' and went to 16-14 in the 5th set with Federer only having his serve broken once..

Yes and Sampras was in his prime from 1999 onwards but it just wasn't noticable because of that field.

powerangle
04-10-2011, 04:08 PM
I think you misunderstood what I meant with Fed era. For a example, one can dominate, but it does not necessarily mean he's in prime. Federer didn't have to break a sweat against the likes of Roddick.
I believe Federer is still in his prime, but due to the current field it is not noticeable.

Fair enough. But even without looking at the results...one can still tell he's out of his prime, by how he plays on court. The "lesser" players that used to be routinely thumped by him 1 and 2, can now hang with him before bowing out 6-4 7-6. He shanks more often and has concentration lapses against everyone. He doesn't generate as much torque or consistent speed on his forehand either. Not to mention half a step slower and doesn't anticipate as well.

And saying that a tennis player is still in his prime at 29, after hitting his prime at 22/23...is a bit of a stretch.

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 12:31 AM
Roddick who has a winning head to head over the 'king' and went to 16-14 in the 5th set with Federer only having his serve broken once..

Yes and Sampras was in his prime from 1999 onwards but it just wasn't noticable because of that field.

You are wrong here. Djokovic was the one struggling against Roddick not the King...

Sentinel
04-11-2011, 12:45 AM
Yoda, a little boy is running loose in the forum. you need to restrain him :D

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 01:07 AM
Yoda, a little boy is running loose in the forum. you need to restrain him :D

I promised the King I would watch over him while he's on tour. ;)

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 01:30 AM
novakkkkk!!

who is dodal? is new serbian player? :?

Đodal is half Serbian.

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 01:42 AM
What? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

With luck I mean the last years USO. You can't get more lucky than that.