ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
And the real winner here will be Nadal. The guy will clean up 1999-2002 RG and WB.
How many Slams Federer wins if Big3 were all born in 1981?
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
And the real winner here will be Nadal. The guy will clean up 1999-2002 RG and WB.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic with his gluten allergy and before he mastered sliding? Yeah Hewitt was a better mover. No doubt in my mind.
Hewitt was dominant over the top 10 in 2001 and won the YEC without dropping a match if you want to play it like that. Not to mention the fact that he actually showed a clearly better level in those last two rounds IMO which is more relevant than whatever run Djokovic was on.
Don't think Djokovic's offence advantage even exists unless he can keep the error count low, which I'm not sure he can - this is 2007 Djokovic not 2011.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Ok. Agree to disagree.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Nadal doesn't clean up Wimby. 06 corresponds to 01, he's not winning that. 07 corresponds to 02, he'd have a good shot of winning that, 08 he'd have to beat 03 Federer (and probably another big server) on faster grass, 2010 he'd have to beat 2005 Federer, and then after that he's done.
RG he'd probably win just like he did anyways, but he'd have to beat Kuerten in 05/06 (00/01) which would have been tougher than beating Federer.
Nadal might be the big loser here because most of his non-clay slams would be in big jeopardy. Let's say he wins 07 Wimby and loses 2008, 2009 AO he'd have to beat 04 Fed and multiple other great players. 2010 Wimby/USO he'd have to face 2005 Fed and 2011 Djoker, 2013 USO has to face 2008 Fed (with no mental issues), 2017/2019 USO, no way he's winning those.
NatF
Bionic Poster
metsman
G.O.A.T.
The dynamic here is this: Nadal now has to face better players for almost all his non-clay slams (and has to face Guga for the first two RG with no Thiem tour from 2017-2019 so he has to face a much tougher road on clay as well) so he can only lose. Djokovic has to face way better Fedals in his prime. He could win a couple extra pre-prime slams, but I don't really see it(I highly doubt he's winning 2001 or 2002 USO) overall it seems certain he'll lose. Federer has to face the same versions he already did, but now he'll be in much better form himself. Meanwhile, he gets to epicly clean up from 11-12 to make up whatever he loses. Pretty clear who wins and who loses.
RS
Bionic Poster
Let me assume they play the way they did in the 5/6 years apart in age and were in the same situation which might not happen but to give it a chance.
2003
AO-None.
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer (Nadal would have a shot)
USO-None.
2004
AO-Nadal ( some would go Federer)
RG-Nadal.(Nadal is fitter for RG though if that is the case he wins it)
Wim-Federer
USO-Federer
2005
AO-Djokovic (some would go Federer)
RG-Nadal (plays better with the slower conditions)
Wim-Federer (Nadal in the last 2 rounds excellent has a chance)
USO-Toss (lean to Nadal)
2006
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer
USO-Federer (Nadal with more confidence could cause problems) Djokovic was on fire in USO 12 before the final
2007
AO-Toss (lean to Djokdal)
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer
USO-Federer
2008
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer (Djokovic decent shot
USO-Federer (Nadal decent shot)
2009
AO-Toss between Federer and Djo (Nadal could stop Federer or Djokovic before the final)
RG-Nadal
Wim-Djokovic (Federer is very close like a hair behind )
USO-Djokovic (Same as above)
2010
AO-Djokovic (same as above)
RG-Djokovic (Soderling has a chance of upestting him before the final in that case he could win)
Wim-None.
USO-Federer
2011
AO-Federer
RG-Federer
Wim-None. (Federer closest)
USO-Federer (Nadal in with a shot)
2012
AO-Federer (Nadal in a shot
RG-Nadal
Wim-Toss between Federer and Djokovic.
USO-Djokovic
2013
AO-Djokovic
RG -Nadal
Wim-Nadal (Djokovic in with a shot
USO- None? (Nadal closest)
2014
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer
USO-None. (Nadal best shot)
Earlier slams backwards order
2002
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Nadal (If he does not lose early)
USO- None. (Djokovic best shot)
2001
AO-None.
RG-Nadal (Kuerten can give a good fight
Wim-Nobody. (Nadal best shot)
USO-Nobody (Djokovic best shot)
2000
AO-None
RG-Nadal
Wim-None
USO-None
2003
AO-None.
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer (Nadal would have a shot)
USO-None.
2004
AO-Nadal ( some would go Federer)
RG-Nadal.(Nadal is fitter for RG though if that is the case he wins it)
Wim-Federer
USO-Federer
2005
AO-Djokovic (some would go Federer)
RG-Nadal (plays better with the slower conditions)
Wim-Federer (Nadal in the last 2 rounds excellent has a chance)
USO-Toss (lean to Nadal)
2006
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer
USO-Federer (Nadal with more confidence could cause problems) Djokovic was on fire in USO 12 before the final
2007
AO-Toss (lean to Djokdal)
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer
USO-Federer
2008
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer (Djokovic decent shot
USO-Federer (Nadal decent shot)
2009
AO-Toss between Federer and Djo (Nadal could stop Federer or Djokovic before the final)
RG-Nadal
Wim-Djokovic (Federer is very close like a hair behind )
USO-Djokovic (Same as above)
2010
AO-Djokovic (same as above)
RG-Djokovic (Soderling has a chance of upestting him before the final in that case he could win)
Wim-None.
USO-Federer
2011
AO-Federer
RG-Federer
Wim-None. (Federer closest)
USO-Federer (Nadal in with a shot)
2012
AO-Federer (Nadal in a shot
RG-Nadal
Wim-Toss between Federer and Djokovic.
USO-Djokovic
2013
AO-Djokovic
RG -Nadal
Wim-Nadal (Djokovic in with a shot
USO- None? (Nadal closest)
2014
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Federer
USO-None. (Nadal best shot)
Earlier slams backwards order
2002
AO-Djokovic
RG-Nadal
Wim-Nadal (If he does not lose early)
USO- None. (Djokovic best shot)
2001
AO-None.
RG-Nadal (Kuerten can give a good fight
Wim-Nobody. (Nadal best shot)
USO-Nobody (Djokovic best shot)
2000
AO-None
RG-Nadal
Wim-None
USO-None
Last edited:
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
The delusion never ends. Also, hypothetical Federer never loses.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I had to laugh at 2011 Fed with three possible Slams, though it's actually a pretty agreeable stance. Shows that the competition would probably take a bit of a dip once these players get older in this scenario. My list would be pretty similar; the only significant change I would make would be giving Fed AO 2007 and giving Djokovic more of a chance in USO 2005.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
fine, but that’s just time travel tennis, not a “let‘s imagine they are all the same age“ scenario
RS
Bionic Poster
I had a twist it a decent amount.
RS
Bionic Poster
Yes. I did add toss even though i picked a slight favourite. I feel the my USO could be wrong due to the faster court. At AO Federer has to finish Djokdal in 4 or he could get outlasted in a 5th.
Last edited:
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Alternative scenario. Young federer, who was a comparatively late bloomer, finds himself facing two ATG who have multiple slams before Federer even reaches a final. Nadal’s confidence (and Novak’s too but to a lesser extent) are boosted significantly. By the time Fed reaches his first slam final at Wimbledon he faces Nadal who has already won it together with other slams. Nadal beats him and pushed even further back Fed’s first slam win. In HCs Novak (which reached fínals at AO and the USO also years before Fed did) stops him several times. For a few years at least Fed is the third wheel since the biggest rivalry Is Nadal-Djokovic, two almost teenagers who dominate the top of the tour.
The point is that once you assume they are all the same age they face each other much earlier and the whole dynamic changes. I’m not even focusing on other players (a waste of time, it’s hard enough to spell out a hypothetical scenario for these three) nor on surface changes (players train and adapt to what they face so if surfaces changed so would the training).
and if we are going to do time travel tennis, do we take into account what each one went through in their own timeline (sounds like a Star Trek episode!)? So if 2014 Novak goes back to play 2008 Fed does he do so knowing he beat him in 2014? Does that change his confidence? Same with 2008 Nadal vs 2003 Fed at Wimbledon.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
It's clear as day that Federer would never reach 20. In fact, none of them probably will but especially not him. He would be the 3rd wheel that would have to breakthrough so the whole landscape changes. This scenario works best for Nadal because before the other two reach their peaks, he would have aleady terrorized clay and added a grass Slam or two, and they would be playing catch up.
You seem to have made up your opinion before even you started the thread. Not sure then why you are seeking others thoughts.
Doesn’t Federer lead Djokovic this decade in BO3 , which perhaps shows it is the physicality of 5 sets he struggles more ? Hasn’t he beaten Nadal convincingly for the last 6 years ? Didn’t Federer and Nadal not beat Djokovic up until 2012 , when Novak played some of his best tennis ?
Why is there a constant need to beat up on Djokovic rivals ??
The big 3 are great players , each one of them would have won a ton in any era. End of story.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
If Nadal and Djokovic didn't have the the target (and blueprint) provided by Federer, they'd never have become the players that they are today.
Without the five-year and six-year lead time, they would have been left to their own devices to crack the ATP code.
Federer made them.
Single-digit slam count for the both of them.
Without the five-year and six-year lead time, they would have been left to their own devices to crack the ATP code.
Federer made them.
Single-digit slam count for the both of them.
Nadal_Django
Legend
Less than 5. He doesn't have a prayer against a competition not named Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Blake, Davydenko... I mean can you imagine Federer against Peak Nadal and Djokovic in 2004-07. I mean can you imagine the mental torture that Federer will be receiving at the hands of these two. Slam, after slam, after slam. The poor dude would be mentally dead most probably by the age of 25 or something...If not earlier.
I mean can you imagine the mental torture that Federer will be receiving at the hands of these two. Slam, after slam, after slam. The poor dude would be mentally dead most probably by the age of 25 or something...If not earlier.
RS
Bionic Poster
I said in 2 other posts i think that we do not know if they have the same style of play. Or training and rackets etc etc. Without any assumptions this will never work. It would be hard so say how a SUV or SH-BH Nadal would do vs Federer or if he plays better on faster courts and not clay or if Federer adapts earlier etc etc. I was taking into account what they did in their own timeline at the same age because a peak disscusion mainly assuming they are all at peak level at the same time which was a similar age.
Your first scenario ignores the possiblity Federer could have made certain changes. Unless like me you are leaving that out and taking it based on the level they showed? It ignores later years as well how do they pan out? Also how many slams does a Djokovic at young take in those draws? Nadal would benefit most as you said he was the best young player of the 3. Fedal had a mid career than Djokovic. FedDjoker better later career than Rafa etc etc etc.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Of course, there are thousands of possible alternatives.
liftordie
Hall of Fame
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
At any rate, I think Fed would benefit much more if he was the one on the tails of Nadal and Djokovic rather than the other way around. He definitely fares much better as a hunter of records (he's really broken so many) than a holder of them and I think that would definitely play into it. Also, it seems more likely that he'd shape his game for the likes of Nadal once he realized that that's what he would have to do to break through. It's a bit different from him developing the game to dominate the field and then the Nadal problem coming later.
zagor
Bionic Poster
2006 Nadal on grass was pretty damn good actually aside from his usual early round woes (and he only had one, with Kendrick), one of his better runs on the surface.
Are you thinking the grass was faster or the field too deep or weather conditions (quite a few rain delays)?
zagor
Bionic Poster
You could say Fed wouldn't be Fed without Pete then following that logic.
Nobody before him even cared about the slam count, it was about Wimbledon and USO, #1, even Davis Cup used to be a much bigger thing.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
No.
They have played with Federer for the entirety of their careers.
In Nadal's case, his specific objective was crafting a game that might defuse Federer.
These kind of threads if discussed rationally can be interesting.
All of the big 3 win 15+ majors in this situation. Who comes marginally ahead is immaterial.
Nadal still wins all the FO. Fed wins most Wimb. Djokovic wins most AO. Both Djokovic and Fed will take one or two from the other at Wimb/AO.
Fed, Djokovic and field will split USO.
All of the big 3 win 15+ majors in this situation. Who comes marginally ahead is immaterial.
Nadal still wins all the FO. Fed wins most Wimb. Djokovic wins most AO. Both Djokovic and Fed will take one or two from the other at Wimb/AO.
Fed, Djokovic and field will split USO.
My 2 cents. Comparison slam by slam(2005 AO Rafa in 2000 AO ecc.).
I will comment only the hard ones.
2000-2004:
2005-2009
2010-2014:
After 2014 AO:
We don't know how good will be Nole and Rafa in 2020 and after. So I will stop here.
Federer could probably win something in 2014-2015 and 2017-18. So he can maybe win more than 15 slams.
Nole was dominant in early 2020. And I think 2020-22 Nole could won some slams something with 2014-16 field too. Probably around 15 is a good prediction for him too.
2019 Nadal is a lock for 2014 RG, and probably US Open(We don't know how good 2020 US Open Djokovic will be, if they will play). And probably he can win some other RGs. He could reach 20 pretty easily.
2014-16 Murray could win some slams too.
There was some doubtful decision in my scenario. So 1 or 2 slam more or less it's not significant. But I'm almost sure Nadal would had taken the slam record, with Nole and Federer damaging the other one and losing 5 slams(More or less) each one. Murray could won something more(Not much, because he injured when Federer was quite good and Nole and Nadal will probably be quite good too) than he actually won.
I will comment only the hard ones.
2000-2004:
2000: (2005 Rafa, 2006 Nole)
AO: Agassi.
RG: Kuerten. (Hard one, Kuerten is overrated, but it's probably better competition on clay than Puerta or 2005 Federer. Nadal had a big shot here btw.)
WIM: Sampras.
USO: Safin.
2001: (2006 Rafa, 2007 Nole)
AO: Agassi.
RG: Nadal(1). (Another year of experience for Rafa, he would had not lost to Kuerten IMO.)
WIM Nadal(2). (In 2006 Rafa win all matches aside 1 in straight sets. Ivanisevic run from WC to title was epic, but he was one of weakest Wimbledon champions ever.)
USO: Hewitt. (I'll give the edge to Hewitt vs 2007 BabyNole.)
2002: (2007 Rafa, 2008 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(1).
RG: Nadal(3).
WIM: Nadal(4).
USO: Sampras. (But 2008 Nole would had a shot here.)
2003: (2008 Rafa, 2009 Nole)
AO: Agassi.
RG: Nadal(5).
WIM: Nadal(6). (He beat a 27 years old Fed, he could beat a 21 years old one.)
USO: Roddick. (The hardest one so far. In 2009 Djokovic lost in 3 tight sets vs Federer, Roddick was good but with way lesser competition. I'll give this to A-Rod but this is very doubtful.)
2004: (2009 Rafa, 2010 Nole)
AO: Nadal(6). (Same as 2008 Wimbledon. Nadal was too good in these slams.)
RG: Coria. (No big 3 had a decent slam run in 2003, 2009 and 2010 respectively.)
WIM: Federer(1).
USO: Federer(2). (2010 Federer, beaten by Nole, was really worse than 2004 one, or he had only lesser competition? I'll go with Fed, but it's close.)
AO: Agassi.
RG: Kuerten. (Hard one, Kuerten is overrated, but it's probably better competition on clay than Puerta or 2005 Federer. Nadal had a big shot here btw.)
WIM: Sampras.
USO: Safin.
2001: (2006 Rafa, 2007 Nole)
AO: Agassi.
RG: Nadal(1). (Another year of experience for Rafa, he would had not lost to Kuerten IMO.)
WIM Nadal(2). (In 2006 Rafa win all matches aside 1 in straight sets. Ivanisevic run from WC to title was epic, but he was one of weakest Wimbledon champions ever.)
USO: Hewitt. (I'll give the edge to Hewitt vs 2007 BabyNole.)
2002: (2007 Rafa, 2008 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(1).
RG: Nadal(3).
WIM: Nadal(4).
USO: Sampras. (But 2008 Nole would had a shot here.)
2003: (2008 Rafa, 2009 Nole)
AO: Agassi.
RG: Nadal(5).
WIM: Nadal(6). (He beat a 27 years old Fed, he could beat a 21 years old one.)
USO: Roddick. (The hardest one so far. In 2009 Djokovic lost in 3 tight sets vs Federer, Roddick was good but with way lesser competition. I'll give this to A-Rod but this is very doubtful.)
2004: (2009 Rafa, 2010 Nole)
AO: Nadal(6). (Same as 2008 Wimbledon. Nadal was too good in these slams.)
RG: Coria. (No big 3 had a decent slam run in 2003, 2009 and 2010 respectively.)
WIM: Federer(1).
USO: Federer(2). (2010 Federer, beaten by Nole, was really worse than 2004 one, or he had only lesser competition? I'll go with Fed, but it's close.)
2005-2009
2005:
(2010 Rafa, 2011 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(2).
RG: Nadal(8).
WIM: Federer(3). (Wow. Impossible know who is the better player. I think Nole 2011 or Nadal 2010. But Federer was the most dominant in the slam with only one set lost.)
USO: Nadal(9). (I don't know between Nole and Rafa. Federer lost a set vs Agassi, who was not so good. I'll give the edge to Rafa.)
2006: (2011 Rafa, 2012 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(3). (In 2012 Nole was great. He struggled only vs some of the best competition ever. Federer in 2006 won easily but lost some sets vs way lesser players.)
RG: Nadal(10).
WIM: Federer(4).
USO: Federer(5).
2007: (2012 Rafa, 2013 Nole)
AO: Federer(6). (Never lost a set. Difficult to say how good he was, but can't give this to another one).
RG: Nadal(11).
WIM: Federer(7).
USO: Federer(8). (He won in 3 thight sets vs BabyNole btw, I'm not sure he could beat 2013 one.)
2008: (2013 Rafa, 2014 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(4). (Nadal loss to Stan in Stanimal version, eventual winner 9-7 in the fifth. Better loss than the one vs pre-prime Nole. And I gave a lot of doubts slam against Nole so far.)
RG: Nadal(12).
WIM: Djokovic(5). (He actually won in 2014. Federer lost to a probably better player in 2008, but I'll give the edge to Nole.)
USO: Nadal(13). (He lost a set vs 2013 Nole, Federer lost a set vs 2008 Nole. Edge to Rafa.)
2009: (2014 Rafa, 2015 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(6). (Federer can have a case similiarly at WIM08 here.)
RG: Nadal(13). (2014 one wasn't best Nadal at RG. But I don't think 09 Fed, who struggled vs a lot of opponents, and 15 Nole, who lost vs Wawrinka, can beat him.)
WIM: Djokovic(7). (Federer had an epic win in 2009, but not a solid one.)
USO: Del Potro. (2015 and early 2016 Nole was goating. Delpo was almost unbeatable in 2009. Unfair for both not give this one.)
AO: Djokovic(2).
RG: Nadal(8).
WIM: Federer(3). (Wow. Impossible know who is the better player. I think Nole 2011 or Nadal 2010. But Federer was the most dominant in the slam with only one set lost.)
USO: Nadal(9). (I don't know between Nole and Rafa. Federer lost a set vs Agassi, who was not so good. I'll give the edge to Rafa.)
2006: (2011 Rafa, 2012 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(3). (In 2012 Nole was great. He struggled only vs some of the best competition ever. Federer in 2006 won easily but lost some sets vs way lesser players.)
RG: Nadal(10).
WIM: Federer(4).
USO: Federer(5).
2007: (2012 Rafa, 2013 Nole)
AO: Federer(6). (Never lost a set. Difficult to say how good he was, but can't give this to another one).
RG: Nadal(11).
WIM: Federer(7).
USO: Federer(8). (He won in 3 thight sets vs BabyNole btw, I'm not sure he could beat 2013 one.)
2008: (2013 Rafa, 2014 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(4). (Nadal loss to Stan in Stanimal version, eventual winner 9-7 in the fifth. Better loss than the one vs pre-prime Nole. And I gave a lot of doubts slam against Nole so far.)
RG: Nadal(12).
WIM: Djokovic(5). (He actually won in 2014. Federer lost to a probably better player in 2008, but I'll give the edge to Nole.)
USO: Nadal(13). (He lost a set vs 2013 Nole, Federer lost a set vs 2008 Nole. Edge to Rafa.)
2009: (2014 Rafa, 2015 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(6). (Federer can have a case similiarly at WIM08 here.)
RG: Nadal(13). (2014 one wasn't best Nadal at RG. But I don't think 09 Fed, who struggled vs a lot of opponents, and 15 Nole, who lost vs Wawrinka, can beat him.)
WIM: Djokovic(7). (Federer had an epic win in 2009, but not a solid one.)
USO: Del Potro. (2015 and early 2016 Nole was goating. Delpo was almost unbeatable in 2009. Unfair for both not give this one.)
2010-2014:
2010:
(2015 Rafa, 2016 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(8).
RG: Djokovic(9).
WIM: Berdych. (Bad losses for Big 3 here.)
USO: Federer(9). (He lost a tight match vs a better Nole than 2016 one.)
2011: (2016 Rafa, 2017 Nole)
AO: Federer(10).
RG: Federer(11).
WIM: Murray(1). (Bad losses for Big 3 here. I give Murray an edge vs Tsonga.)
USO: Federer(12). (Murray could had a shot. He lost to Rafa, who beat Nole, who beat Federer, pretty easily.)
2012: (2017 Rafa, 2018 Nole)
AO: Nadal(14).
RG: Nadal(15).
WIM: Federer(13). (Djokovic was epic in 2018, but Federer in 2012 beat a better Nole.)
USO: Djokovic(10). (Hard one too. Murray beat Nole in 2012, but in 2018 Nole dominated.)
2013: (2018 Rafa, 2019 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(11).
RG: Nadal(16).
WIM: Murray(2).
USO: Nadal(17).
2014: (2019 Rafa, 2020 Nole)
AO: Wawrinka. (He was lucky beating injured Nadal. But he beat 2014 Djokovic, probably better than 2019 Rafa and 2020 Nole. Not sure btw.)
AO: Djokovic(8).
RG: Djokovic(9).
WIM: Berdych. (Bad losses for Big 3 here.)
USO: Federer(9). (He lost a tight match vs a better Nole than 2016 one.)
2011: (2016 Rafa, 2017 Nole)
AO: Federer(10).
RG: Federer(11).
WIM: Murray(1). (Bad losses for Big 3 here. I give Murray an edge vs Tsonga.)
USO: Federer(12). (Murray could had a shot. He lost to Rafa, who beat Nole, who beat Federer, pretty easily.)
2012: (2017 Rafa, 2018 Nole)
AO: Nadal(14).
RG: Nadal(15).
WIM: Federer(13). (Djokovic was epic in 2018, but Federer in 2012 beat a better Nole.)
USO: Djokovic(10). (Hard one too. Murray beat Nole in 2012, but in 2018 Nole dominated.)
2013: (2018 Rafa, 2019 Nole)
AO: Djokovic(11).
RG: Nadal(16).
WIM: Murray(2).
USO: Nadal(17).
2014: (2019 Rafa, 2020 Nole)
AO: Wawrinka. (He was lucky beating injured Nadal. But he beat 2014 Djokovic, probably better than 2019 Rafa and 2020 Nole. Not sure btw.)
After 2014 AO:
We don't know how good will be Nole and Rafa in 2020 and after. So I will stop here.
Federer could probably win something in 2014-2015 and 2017-18. So he can maybe win more than 15 slams.
Nole was dominant in early 2020. And I think 2020-22 Nole could won some slams something with 2014-16 field too. Probably around 15 is a good prediction for him too.
2019 Nadal is a lock for 2014 RG, and probably US Open(We don't know how good 2020 US Open Djokovic will be, if they will play). And probably he can win some other RGs. He could reach 20 pretty easily.
2014-16 Murray could win some slams too.
There was some doubtful decision in my scenario. So 1 or 2 slam more or less it's not significant. But I'm almost sure Nadal would had taken the slam record, with Nole and Federer damaging the other one and losing 5 slams(More or less) each one. Murray could won something more(Not much, because he injured when Federer was quite good and Nole and Nadal will probably be quite good too) than he actually won.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Ivanisevic one of the weakest Wimbledon champions ever? He had already made 3 Wimbledon finals and 2 SFs prior to winning it, and in his draw he went through Moya, Roddick, Rusedski, Safin, Henman and Rafter. That's one of the hardest Wimbledon draws ever. Good luck to 2006 Nadal, who was still quite green, making his way through that draw. A lot of this is a bit too much wishful thinking but too much to dissect.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
You have done well but I think you are swinging it way more towards Nadal and giving Djokovic lesser credit.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
I think people who are voting less than 15 aren't actually considering the years which are coinciding.
Apart from few years in 2003-06 it's not really best vs best. And Federer definitely takes few of those too. And whatever he loses he gains when Rafael and Djokovic have their slums as those years start to correspond to 2010,2011,2012.
As for those saying Federer would lose his confidence, the guy has kept reinventing himself since he got his ego kicked around in 2008-11.
He had his 2012,2014-15,2017 comebacks and each time with different styles.
And who is to say he doesn't get RF 97 beforehand to tackle Nadal? God knows it can be disastrous as Fed's smaller stick was responsible for his success but what if it works as well as it has against older Rafael?
I won't put it past Federer to get to 14-16 range. Others will be in 17-20 range.
Apart from few years in 2003-06 it's not really best vs best. And Federer definitely takes few of those too. And whatever he loses he gains when Rafael and Djokovic have their slums as those years start to correspond to 2010,2011,2012.
As for those saying Federer would lose his confidence, the guy has kept reinventing himself since he got his ego kicked around in 2008-11.
He had his 2012,2014-15,2017 comebacks and each time with different styles.
And who is to say he doesn't get RF 97 beforehand to tackle Nadal? God knows it can be disastrous as Fed's smaller stick was responsible for his success but what if it works as well as it has against older Rafael?
I won't put it past Federer to get to 14-16 range. Others will be in 17-20 range.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
So the one with the best h2h (second best at Slams but with more matches played) would be the most penalized?
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
5-10 seems reasonable.......
So the one with the best h2h would be the most penalized?
Quite logical. By playing Djokovic and Nadal instead of Roddick, Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Hewitt etc., Federer would improve his GS tally.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Federer would have to deal with good version of at least one between Djokovic and Nadal in most of the Slams until 2014.
He'd some times have to deal with both (in 2005-2009 they could meet a lot of times). Considering the 4-10 vs Nadal and 6-11 vs Djokovic I think he'd win about 25% of his real slams until 2014 (when Djokodal would be the age they are now, 33 yo).
25% of 17 Slams = 4 Slams
Then he would have chances to win 2015 WI, 2015 UO, 2016 AO, 2017 AO, 2017 WI, 2018 AO, 2019 RG, 2019 WI, 2020 AO. Depends of what version of Djokodal he would face.
He'd some times have to deal with both (in 2005-2009 they could meet a lot of times). Considering the 4-10 vs Nadal and 6-11 vs Djokovic I think he'd win about 25% of his real slams until 2014 (when Djokodal would be the age they are now, 33 yo).
25% of 17 Slams = 4 Slams
Then he would have chances to win 2015 WI, 2015 UO, 2016 AO, 2017 AO, 2017 WI, 2018 AO, 2019 RG, 2019 WI, 2020 AO. Depends of what version of Djokodal he would face.
RS
Bionic Poster
IMO if they show the form they did in 5 years apart yes.So the one with the best h2h (second best at Slams but with more matches played) would be the most penalized?
As overall player, he is. I would rank him only above Cash and Krajicek, and can be made cases for both he was better or worst than Stich. But all other OE winners are clearly better player than Ivanisevic.
As Wimbledon/Grass player he used to be good, instead.
But this statements aren't much important in this discussion, I'm arguing 2001 Wimbledon Ivanisevic was one of the weakest OE Wimbledon champions.
He was 3 years removed from his last Wimbledon final. In these 3 years he had 67-72 record(48,2%). His best result in this span was a Master QF in 1998. In slams 4R at 1998 US Open and 1999 Wimbledon.
In 2000 AO-2001 RG his results in slams was: 1x 2R loss, 3x 1R losses, 1x 1Q loss, 1x absent. He was ranked #125 before Wimbledon.
After that tournament never had relevant results going 23-31(42,6%) until his retirement in 2004.
The schedule wasn't so hard too, just watching the opponents names can be misleading. I think a schedule is hard when you have to play a legit finalist/semifinalist before the final/semifinal or some winners/multiple-winners.
This was Ivanisevic schedule:
1R: Jonsson - Nothing to say here.
2R: Moya - Good player, but awful grass player. He hadn't reached the 3R round before that match. And he only do it in 2004(4R). He has an overall 7-8 record at Wimbledon.
3R: Roddick - Big name here, but he was a not even 19 years old Roddick ranked #33, who played for his third time a GS and for the first time Wimbledon.
4R: Rusedeski - This is maybe a trickier fourth round than average. But Rusedeski had only one Wimbledon QF and was long time removed from his best seasons in 1997-98. He was #40. Not much trickier than the average.
QF: Safin - Reaching QF is the second best results ever for Safin at Wimbledon. And only in 2008 he reached the SF. Aside from these two he was eliminated in 1R-3R everytime. Not an easy opponent because he was a very good player in his prime(He was USO reigning champ), but you can have a lot better opponents at this round.
SF: Henman - Consistent Wimbledon player. But never reached a final.
F: Rafter - Two time finalist, but with 0-2 record. Not the hardest opponent you can play in a final.
This schedule would probably be a picnic for 1994-95 Ivanisevic(Who wasn't Borg btw). In 2001 he struggled playing 14 sets in the last three rounds.
Hopefully I explained well why I'm quite sure 2001 Ivanisevic was one of the weakest Wimbledon champions ever. He was terrible for long time before that tournament, and after that until his retirement. He hadn't an elite schedule and struggled to win the tournament.
However, that was an epic run, nothing to say about that.
Yeah, I was trying to not be biased being a Nole fan, and, probably, I overcompensated
.But I think I penalized Nole more in favor of Federer than Rafa.
Nadal closing around 20 is a logical one in my opinion:
-I can't see anyone beat him at RG aside from his 2009, 2015 and 2016 performances(I gave 2005 at Kuerten, but it's very doubtful). He could be beaten by peak Nole(And maybe Federer) in his first RG runs, but this can't happen in this scenario. There are 11/12 slams(And counting) here.
-His peaks at other slams were really high. Beat prime/peak Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 and Australian Open in 2009 and peak/prime Nole in USO 2013. Can be made a strong case for Nole to be in a 2011 form from late 2010 too, so USO 2010 is quite impressive, altough i have doubts he could beat 2011 Nole. In 2010 Wimbledon he hasn't elite competition and it's difficult to say how much high was his level, this situation is comparable with Federer slams until 2006. I think he has the edges in other 3/4 slams.
-He could had lost 2017/2019 USO vs 2012 Murray/2018 Nole and 2014 Cilic(And 2020 Nole maybe?). But his 2006 and 2007 runs to WIM final, stopped playing a good and an even match vs peak Federer, happens in early 2000s with bad competition(Maybe deep, but with very low peak).
-He was stopped by peak Nole in three consecutive 2011/12 finals where his level was very high. Not sure he couldn't beat 2006/07 Federer in some of those. [Edit: 2017 AO is not a case, I forget 2018 Nole would be there.]
So I count 16 slams at very least(11 RG, counting 2019 and not 2005, Wimbledon 2006-07-08, AO 2009, USO 2013), and it's reasoneable 2020-22 Nadal could be the front runner in 2015-17 RG field.
I'm quite sure 20 at the end of his career is a fair prediction. I would predict 0-2 slams less than his real tally when his career will be over.
It's also worth noting that "everyone born in 1981" is a good combination for Federer, because Rafa and Nole worst years overlap, leaving an open field for Fed in late 2010 and 2011(A bit too early for Murray to be a real concern too).
I was thinking at a scenario swapping Murray and Federer age(So Murray 1981, Nadal 1986, Nole 1987, Federer 1987). And I'm quite sure Federer will finish with the least number of slams between Big 3. With Murray winning a lot more than what he really won and what he could had won in this scenario too.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
As overall player, he is. I would rank him only above Cash and Krajicek, and can be made cases for both he was better or worst than Stich. But all other OE winners are clearly better player than Ivanisevic.
As Wimbledon/Grass player he used to be good, instead.
But this statements aren't much important in this discussion, I'm arguing 2001 Wimbledon Ivanisevic was one of the weakest OE Wimbledon champions.
He was 3 years removed from his last Wimbledon final. In these 3 years he had 67-72 record(48,2%). His best result in this span was a Master QF in 1998. In slams 4R at 1998 US Open and 1999 Wimbledon.
In 2000 AO-2001 RG his results in slams was: 1x 2R loss, 3x 1R losses, 1x 1Q loss, 1x absent. He was ranked #125 before Wimbledon.
After that tournament never had relevant results going 23-31(42,6%) until his retirement in 2004.
The schedule wasn't so hard too, just watching the opponents names can be misleading. I think a schedule is hard when you have to play a legit finalist/semifinalist before the final/semifinal or some winners/multiple-winners.
This was Ivanisevic schedule:
1R: Jonsson - Nothing to say here.
2R: Moya - Good player, but awful grass player. He hadn't reached the 3R round before that match. And he only do it in 2004(4R). He has an overall 7-8 record at Wimbledon.
3R: Roddick - Big name here, but he was a not even 19 years old Roddick ranked #33, who played for his third time a GS and for the first time Wimbledon.
4R: Rusedeski - This is maybe a trickier fourth round than average. But Rusedeski had only one Wimbledon QF and was long time removed from his best seasons in 1997-98. He was #40. Not much trickier than the average.
QF: Safin - Reaching QF is the second best results ever for Safin at Wimbledon. And only in 2008 he reached the SF. Aside from these two he was eliminated in 1R-3R everytime. Not an easy opponent because he was a very good player in his prime(He was USO reigning champ), but you can have a lot better opponents at this round.
SF: Henman - Consistent Wimbledon player. But never reached a final.
F: Rafter - Two time finalist, but with 0-2 record. Not the hardest opponent you can play in a final.
This schedule would probably be a picnic for 1994-95 Ivanisevic(Who wasn't Borg btw). In 2001 he struggled playing 14 sets in the last three rounds.
Hopefully I explained well why I'm quite sure 2001 Ivanisevic was one of the weakest Wimbledon champions ever. He was terrible for long time before that tournament, and after that until his retirement. He hadn't an elite schedule and struggled to win the tournament.
However, that was an epic run, nothing to say about that.
Yeah, I was trying to not be biased being a Nole fan, and, probably, I overcompensated
But I think I penalized Nole more in favor of Federer than Rafa.
Nadal closing around 20 is a logical one in my opinion:
-I can't see anyone beat him at RG aside from his 2009, 2015 and 2016 performances(I gave 2005 at Kuerten, but it's very doubtful). He could be beaten by peak Nole(And maybe Federer) in his first RG runs, but this can't happen in this scenario. There are 11/12 slams(And counting) here.
-His peaks at other slams were really high. Beat prime/peak Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 and Australian Open in 2009 and peak/prime Nole in USO 2013. Can be made a strong case for Nole to be in a 2011 form from late 2010 too, so USO 2010 is quite impressive, altough i have doubts he could beat 2011 Nole. In 2010 Wimbledon he hasn't elite competition and it's difficult to say how much high was his level, this situation is comparable with Federer slams until 2006. I think he has the edges in other 3/4 slams.
-He could had lost 2017/2019 USO vs 2012 Murray/2018 Nole and 2014 Cilic(And 2020 Nole maybe?). But his 2006 and 2007 runs to WIM final, stopped playing a good and an even match vs peak Federer, happens in early 2000s with bad competition(Maybe deep, but with very low peak).
-He was stopped by peak Nole in three consecutive 2011/12 finals where his level was very high. Not sure he couldn't beat 2006/07 Federer in some of those. [Edit: 2017 AO is not a case, I forget 2018 Nole would be there.]
So I count 16 slams at very least(11 RG, counting 2019 and not 2005, Wimbledon 2006-07-08, AO 2009, USO 2013), and it's reasoneable 2020-22 Nadal could be the front runner in 2015-17 RG field.
I'm quite sure 20 at the end of his career is a fair prediction. I would predict 0-2 slams less than his real tally when his career will be over.
It's also worth noting that "everyone born in 1981" is a good combination for Federer, because Rafa and Nole worst years overlap, leaving an open field for Fed in late 2010 and 2011(A bit too early for Murray to be a real concern too),
I was thinking at a scenario swapping Murray and Federer age(So Murray 1981, Nadal 1986, Nole 1987, Federer 1987). And I'm quite sure Federer will finish with the least number of slams between Big 3. With Murray winning a lot more than what he really won and what he could had won in this scenario too.
Ivanisevic had more success at Wimbledon than winners Cash, Krajicek, Hewitt, Ashe, Kodes, Smith, Stich and Agassi. He had already proven himself to be a formidable force on grass long before his win in 2001. But beyond that, he played a fairtytale tournament out of nowhere, after not doing anything for years or afterwards, and I know because I watched his level throughout and his legendary two day final. To say he is one if the weakest winners in the Open Era when that was probably one of the greatest wins in the Open Era is mindblowing.
I admitted he was a greater Wimbledon player in his career than a bunch of other winners, but a lesser player overall aside 2/3.
But the point is that his 2001 version is one of the weakest player to win Wimbledon, it's not even his best version(By a good margin IMO).
This is about what you consider "great". 2001 win was epic and unexpected, so you can say it was great. But you can't say it was great because he win with at an incredible level of tennis.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Explain this, please. He was undefeated against first group.
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
Don't you people get tired of discrediting all time greats??
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Where's the contradiction? Don't you consider Roddick to be amazing competition at Wimbledon?
Similar threads
- Poll
