How many Majors would your GOAT have if they didn't have their biggest weapon?

[Robert F]

With any of the potential GOATs, how many majors would they have won if you replace their biggest weapon (in regards to stroke) with just a top 20 version of that weapon.

For Fed, how many GS titles would he have if you replaced his FH with say Nishikori's?

Or replace Fed's Serve with Goffin's serve?

How many GS titles would Nadal have with a left handed RBA forehand?

How many GS titles for Djoker if you replaced his groundies with Nishikori's? (I couldn't pick his BH or FH alone).

Replace Serena's Serve with Diego Schwartzman's?

Replace Graf's forehand with Chris Evert's?

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

God please end this quarantine soon.
People are getting insane

 

[daggerman]

Andy Murray with Nadal's thumbs wouldn't have come close to winning e-Madrid

 

[MichaelNadal]

God please end this quarantine soon.
People are getting insane

Agreed

Im learning recipes lol

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Agreed

Im learning recipes lol

Chicken chicken chicken everywhere in your post...
Don't you ever get bored from eating the same thing ever and ever again??

 

[MichaelNadal]

Chicken chicken chicken everywhere in your post...
Don't you ever get bored from eating the same thing ever and ever again??

Clearly not I eat a lot more than chicken bro, you need to hit up the what did you last eat thread for a more accurate picture

 

[BeatlesFan]

Pete's not my GOAT but if you take away his serve he wins possibly 2 Wimbledon's and 1 USO. Nowhere near 14 slams.

 

[Mainad]

Andy Murray with Nadal's thumbs wouldn't have come close to winning e-Madrid

In fairness to Rafa it probably took him 3 hours just to get connected. Poor guy was already exhausted.

 

[MichaelNadal]

In fairness to Rafa it probably took him 3 hours just to get connected. Poor guy was already exhausted.

The video call with Fed was hilarious it took him forever

 

[ibbi]

Borg without his BB1's? Whew, tough to say. But he'd probably look a lot less cool while doing it.

 

[LETitBE]

20

 

[beard]

Federer, minus his great serve and with good serve instead (Murray for example) ... 11

Nadal without his specific forehand... 13

Novak without... What is his best weapon? Backhand? Return? He is most complete player so lack of his best weapon would harm him least... 14

 

[Red Rick]

Very low. Fed and Nadal fall off hard with average forehands. Djoko falls off crazily with an average backhand. Sampras probably goes nowhere without a great serve.

 

[Gazelle]

Federer, minus his great serve and with good serve instead (Murray for example) ... 11

Nadal without his specific forehand... 13

Novak without... What is his best weapon? Backhand? Return? He is most complete player so lack of his best weapon would harm him least... 14

Nadal has far less with a normal forehand. He's built his career on peppering player's backhands with it. Give Nadal a normal forehand and Fed wins nearly every slam from 2005 till arrival of 2011 Djokovic.

 

[Red Rick]

Nadal: I think 0 with average top 20 forehand, and if he wins one it's like the 2017 USO and probaly not even a RG. All his RG titles went through Fed or Djokovic when he was still fast
Djokovic: 0 with average top 20 backhand imo, mainly because his advantages over Murray, Nadal and Federer completely melt down.
Fed: Maybe he wins 2003 or 2005 Wimbly playing pure s&v with a worse forehand.

 

[beard]

Nadal has far less with a normal forehand. He's built his career on peppering player's backhands with it. Give Nadal a normal forehand and Fed wins nearly every slam from 2005 till arrival of 2011 Djokovic.

Maybe, but Nadal has well rounded game, nice ball touch anyway... We never mentions his backhand which is rock solid...
You forgot that in this scenario Federer would play Nadal with not that great serve, which is his I think underrated stroke and which brought him so much...

Anyway, it this hypothetical scenario player with most rounded strokes would loose less, so it's Novak...

 

[Hitman]

Maybe, but Nadal has well rounded game, nice ball touch anyway... We never mentions his backhand which is rock solid...
You forgot that in this scenario Federer would play Nadal with not that great serve, which is his I think underrated stroke and which brought him so much...

Anyway, it this hypothetical scenario player with most rounded strokes would loose less, so it's Novak...

If Federer played Nadal without his great serve, he still plays Nadal like he did at AO 2009 final. That was a Federer without his great serve, but with an excellent ground game....Now imagine Nadal without his incredible forehand trying to combat that....

 

[Hitman]

Very low. Fed and Nadal fall off hard with average forehands. Djoko falls off crazily with an average backhand. Sampras probably goes nowhere without a great serve.

The question is, what is Federer's biggest weapon? The forehand or the serve? I think it is the forehand also, and if he loses that forehand, then Federer's slam total will drop big time. Nadal's would drop without question if he did not have his forehand.

Djokovic would also see a big drop with that incredible backhand, how many times has he broken serve with incredible stretches and passes on his backhand side...

Sampras would see a massive drop also, his serve has bailed him out of some very tight situations.

Agassi would see a massive drop also without that early take on the backhand side.

Roddick doesn't even win his lone USO, since it was his serve that saved him when he was MP down.

We can just go on and on.

 

[beard]

If Federer played Nadal without his great serve, he still plays Nadal like he did at AO 2009 final. That was a Federer without his great serve, but with an excellent ground game....Now imagine Nadal without his incredible forehand trying to combat that....

How you know it was Fed without great serve? Maybe it was still good enough serve?
We are talking about imaginary things and you say he was without enough good serve that particular match. How you know its serve bad enough to be the one I am talking about?

This is all hypothetical, you know... My opinion is that people are not aware that serve is the most important stroke in Fed collection... Why he was not broken more, and why he is very hard to beat convincingly? Its his serve. In many matches he played crap but was beaten hardly, or he even won, just because of his serve. I called/call him often Serverer...

 

[Hitman]

How you know it was Fed without great serve? Maybe it was still good enough serve?
We are talking about imaginary things and you say he was without enough good serve that particular match. How you know its serve bad enough to be the one I am talking about?

This is all hypothetical, you know... My opinion is that people are not aware that serve is the most important stroke in Fed collection... Why he was not broken more, and why he is very hard to beat convincingly? Its his serve. In many matches he played crap but was beaten hardly, or he even won, just because of his serve. I called/call him often Serverer...

Because Federer with great serving looks like what we saw at Wimbledon 2007, and you can check the stats out for his serving percentage at AO 2009. He wasn't good with his serve due to back issues that he picked up in Paris 2008, when he pulled out before taking on Blake. It is common knowledge that Federer was serving poorly at that time.

We maybe talking imaginary things here, but AO 2009 is the perfect example of a poor serving Federer who had a fantastic ground game, who still matched Nadal blow for blow. Take away Nadal's forehand and the difference would be massively felt, and that would carry into other matches between the two. Nadal would not be getting that massive top spin up high to Federer's backhand with that insane lefty whip with the highest RPMs ever seen in the game. So how do I know? It is quite obvious from the stats.

A Federer who still has his forehand, taking on a Nadal who doesn't have his....that is a gross mis-match

 

[Red Rick]

The question is, what is Federer's biggest weapon? The forehand or the serve? I think it is the forehand also, and if he loses that forehand, then Federer's slam total will drop big time. Nadal's would drop without question if he did not have his forehand.

Djokovic would also see a big drop with that incredible backhand, how many times has he broken serve with incredible stretches and passes on his backhand side...

Sampras would see a massive drop also, his serve has bailed him out of some very tight situations.

Agassi would see a massive drop also without that early take on the backhand side.

Roddick doesn't even win his lone USO, since it was his serve that saved him when he was MP down.

We can just go on and on.

Fed's forehand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed's serve you can't teach 6'5 +++

I was operating under the assumption they were the only player losing their biggest weapon, perhaps I was misunderstanding the question. In this case the Big 3 really suffer from being in each others time period.

 

[Red Rick]

Really, edges between Big3 are so thin when they're good it matches get uncompetitive if you take one of their weapons away without doing the same for the other player.

 

[beard]

Because Federer with great serving looks like what we saw at Wimbledon 2007, and you can check the stats out for his serving percentage at AO 2009. He wasn't good with his serve due to back issues that he picked up in Paris 2008, when he pulled out before taking on Blake. It is common knowledge that Federer was serving poorly at that time.

We maybe talking imaginary things here, but AO 2009 is the perfect example of a poor serving Federer who had a fantastic ground game, who still matched Nadal blow for blow. Take away Nadal's forehand and the difference would be massively felt, and that would carry into other matches between the two. Nadal would not be getting that massive top spin up high to Federer's backhand with that insane lefty whip with the highest RPMs ever seen in the game. So how do I know? It is quite obvious from the stats.

A Federer who still has his forehand, taking on a Nadal who doesn't have his....that is a gross mis-match

Bolded
Now give me match where Nadal played without his forehand to "prove" he is as bad as you "proved" for Fed without serve at ao 09...
Maybe Nadal would have massive flat forehand and would wipe out of court everyone with his offensive...

This is too imaginary anyone to be right... Ill stick to my feeling on topic...

 

[Hitman]

Bolded
Now give me match where Nadal played without his forehand to "prove" he is as bad as you "proved" for Fed without serve at ao 09...
Maybe Nadal would have massive flat forehand and would wipe out of court everyone with his offensive...

This is too imaginary anyone to be right... Ill stick to my feeling on topic...

The OP states if the player had a top 20 shot, what you are describing here is a top five shot, at worst a top 10 shot. No top 20 shot would wipe out the court with everyone using his offense. The two things are contradictory. So, you're not quite on topic with that statement.

Basically, you are saying, a Nadal with a top 20 forehand, is going to be beating or being on equal footing with a Federer who arguably has the GOAT forehand, and unarguably the top five forehand of all time. OK, if you feel so...

In regards to finding you a match with Nadal playing with a bad forehand against Federer...strange request honestly. You do understand that Federer and Nadal will only play each other in semis and finals of events, which means you are asking me if Nadal has actually navigated through draws without his forehand to play Federer in the final....the fact he hasn't managed to do that should give you a clear indication that if Nadal cannot make it past lesser players with a weak forehand to get to Federer, what real chances would he have against Federer himself. Before you say it is all about match ups, a few things - firstly ONLY Djokovic has beaten Nadal more than Federer, meaning Federer is more superior against Nadal than the rest of the field, and secondly, without his forehand spinning up to the backhand and those incredible RPMs gone, the match up will no longer exists...and back to the first point....this topic is about a top 20 replacement shot, not a like for like replacement that you proposed in that post.

If Federer has blasted a Nadal with a decent forehand off the court enough times, then you don't really need to be a rocket scientist to understand what he would have done to a Nadal with a top 20 forehand. Federer losing his serve still doesn't take away from his ground game and return game.

Anyways, maybe we are being too imaginary here.

 

[StrongRule]

If Federer played Nadal without his great serve, he still plays Nadal like he did at AO 2009 final. That was a Federer without his great serve, but with an excellent ground game....Now imagine Nadal without his incredible forehand trying to combat that....

Serve is still a very important shot for Federer, and he would have won much less without it. For example, he would have never won RG 2011 semifinal without his serve, it saved him at the most important points time after time. Also, without serve Federer would have probably retired in 2013, he wouldn't have won anything after that IMO.

 

[Hitman]

Serve is still a very important shot for Federer, and he would have won much less without it. For example, he would have never won RG 2011 semifinal without his serve, it saved him at the most important points time after time. Also, without serve Federer would have probably retired in 2013, he wouldn't have won anything after that IMO.

Of course it is, but take away his forehand and he is dead in the water. And your example is a valid one, but remember, Djokovic was also using his biggest weapon in that match also. In this topic, we are taking away everyone's main weapon. The match would not be played the same, Federer's ground game would still be intact, Djokovic would play without his backhand.

 

[metsman]

Of course it is, but take away his forehand and he is dead in the water. And your example is a valid one, but remember, Djokovic was also using his biggest weapon in that match also. In this topic, we are taking away everyone's main weapon. The match would not be played the same, Federer's ground game would still be intact, Djokovic would play without his backhand.

Fed's FH was most important in his peak, serve more important in his later career. In the middle, his serve carried him through matches but his FH gave him the edge he needed to win.

 

[Robert F]

My hypothetical meant just taking the weapon away from one GOAT at at time, not all at once. Hence Fed without FH vs Typical Nadal.
Would the big 3 dominate if they each didn't have their big weapon?

Agree that Djoker probably gets effected the least. Unless we define Djoker's weapon as his court coverage.

I wonder if Fed's serve and defense would have been enough to keep a couple of slams in the early 2000s.

I think Nadal would still get some Roland Garros titles because he could probably grind some guys with his fitness/speed and then set up some easier forehands.

Interesting that most feel, their slam counts go down to near zero. Does that mean these guys are highly dependent on their major weapon? Or everyone in the top 20-50 has a pretty good game so you need a major weapon to pop you to the top?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

What exactly is meant with “take away”? Does it mean that they are still somehow mediocre in that area or that they completely suck? If Sampras had a Connors serve for instance, he would never win a slam in my opinion. If he had a Rafter Serve (still way weaker than his normal serve but very solid) he would still win like 5 slams.

 

[DSH]

Because Federer with great serving looks like what we saw at Wimbledon 2007, and you can check the stats out for his serving percentage at AO 2009. He wasn't good with his serve due to back issues that he picked up in Paris 2008, when he pulled out before taking on Blake. It is common knowledge that Federer was serving poorly at that time.

We maybe talking imaginary things here, but AO 2009 is the perfect example of a poor serving Federer who had a fantastic ground game, who still matched Nadal blow for blow. Take away Nadal's forehand and the difference would be massively felt, and that would carry into other matches between the two. Nadal would not be getting that massive top spin up high to Federer's backhand with that insane lefty whip with the highest RPMs ever seen in the game. So how do I know? It is quite obvious from the stats.

A Federer who still has his forehand, taking on a Nadal who doesn't have his....that is a gross mis-match

Nadal was tired as hell.
Without fatigue, the Spaniard would have defeated him more easily.

 

[Robert F]

What exactly is meant with “take away”? Does it mean that they are still somehow mediocre in that area or that they completely suck? If Sampras had a Connors serve for instance, he would never win a slam in my opinion. If he had a Rafter Serve (still way weaker than his normal serve but very solid) he would still win like 5 slams.

My intention is replacing their best weapon from legendary/top 5 status with a top 20 version. For Nadal his world class, maybe best FH ever is replaced with a solid top 20 FH--say RBA, Nishikori, Ferrer. Good but not killer.

 

[Hitman]

Nadal was tired as hell.
Without fatigue, the Spaniard would have defeated him more easily.

Sure, the same way Djokovic would have dealt more easily with Nadal at AO 2012 had he not been fatigued. But we are digressing from the point of a Nadal being unfairly handicapped to play a Federer who has a complete ground game, while Nadal doesn't have his biggest weapon. Not really a fair match, even if you factor out fatigue.

 

[NoleFam]

Sampras, Graf and Nadal would be hurt the most in my opinion. Their whole games revolve around their weapon: Sampras' serve, Graf's forehand, and Nadal's forehand. No way does Sampras dominate Wimbledon without it and no way does Steffi dominate anywhere without her forehand. She basically becomes a mere mortal. Nadal would just become a great player but not an excellent one and he wouldn't have his jumping topspin which has given every opponent he ever faced nightmares. They still win Slams but double digits? I don't see it.

Federer, Serena and Djokovic would be hurt as well but less so. If Federer's loses his forehand he still has his serve and variety. If Djokovic loses his return, he still has his great groundstrokes . If he loses his backhand, he still has his return and a really good forehand. I don't think Serena has had her dominant serve since she came back to the game 2 years ago and she still made 4 Slam finals. I think they wouldn't dominate as much but they would still be forces to be reckoned with.