how many slams would fed have won if he faced 03-06 opponents his whole career?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dominikk1985, Jan 31, 2013.

?

how many slams

  1. less than 17

    7 vote(s)
    10.1%
  2. 17

    5 vote(s)
    7.2%
  3. 17-19

    11 vote(s)
    15.9%
  4. 20-22

    11 vote(s)
    15.9%
  5. 23-25

    12 vote(s)
    17.4%
  6. 26+

    23 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,415
    I think the weak era thing is overblown and guys like roddick, Hewitt and old Agassi didn't actually "suck". they were good Players and fed beat them because he was a beast.

    However let's asume that fed played his whole career against Young roddick,hewitt, coria, old Agassi and other guys of that era. fed is certainly not as good as he was in his prime but he is still a great Player. he regularly spanks top10 Players.

    would 31 yo fed still win 2-3 slams a year against those guys? or would he also struggle?

    what number of slams would he have won?
     
    #1
  2. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    If those guys stayed in their primes as Federer aged? I'd say maybe around 20. He wouldn't be able to dominate like he used to because those are some good players. Nadal and Djokovic are better, of course, but not overwhelmingly so.
     
    #2
  3. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    If the field remained as 03-06 he would probably win every non clay slam until the end of 2012 atleast, so that would make atleast 27 slams total right now. Thank goodness the field progressed from what it was at that point.
     
    #3
  4. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,415
    how many clay slams would he have won against the early to mid 00 guys?
     
    #4
  5. wangs78

    wangs78 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,896
    Location:
    New York
    Fed at 31 can beat any of those guys from 03-06, except perhaps an in-form Safin (almost never happens). He's still great at dealing with big servers so I don't think a young Roddick will do much better. The big reason that people never mention that Murray and Djokovic and Nadal are so good is that they played against Federer when they still had several years to improve, so when Fed set the bar so high they were able to hit that bar. Players who are Fed's age, by the time they played a prime Fed they had already maxed out their abilities and there was no room left to improve in any big sort of way.
     
    #5
  6. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,415
    yes. they stay Young, fed Ages.

    I don't think he would have continued to win 3 slams a year. I believe 31yo fed is still better than prime roddick and prime Hewitt, however you have to factor in Motivation. fed is tremendously motivated by facing nadal and nole. he works his butt off to prove he is still the top dog.

    if he continued to win 3 a year from 07-12 he would have won 27 slams. while he does have the Talent to do this against those guys I cannot see him stay motivated like this against that field.


    I think he would have ended up with 21-22 slams at best.
     
    #6
  7. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,161
    Location:
    Toronto
    03-06 would have gotten older with him...so he obviously would have won more. If they stayed the same....while he aged....they would win.
     
    #7
  8. tennis_badger

    tennis_badger Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Messages:
    222
    he would win all the slams.
    fed will have no trouble with young hewitt and agassi, they're a few level below nadal, plus they have no insane spin
    young rod will also be no prob, he can handles big server just fine!
    never saw coria play, but cant be better than nadal
    safin, well, his legendary in-form (as per TT **** logic) actually a once in a lifetime event which happen in AO 2005. not gonna happen again. ever. much like rosol beating nadal again, aint gonna happen. so safin is no trouble for fed.
     
    #8
  9. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    So a 11 slam winner and a 6 slam winner are not overwhelmingly better than a 2 slam winner and a 1 slam winner?
     
    #9
  10. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    No. If Nadal and Djokovic had the misfortune of having their primes coincide with Federer's, they'd have fewer Slams and Hewitt, Roddick, Safin would have more Slams if they had had a post-prime Federer in their path instead of a prime beast.
     
    #10
  11. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,881
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and ┼╝eberka
    It progressed so much that instead of peak Federer and 7-8 other very good players now we have one Djokovic, one Murray and an old Federer. DAT PROGRESSION
     
    #11
  12. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,286
    where is the option for 0?
     
    #12
  13. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    And federer would have a lot fewer slams as well. Obviously you take multiple greats and stick them into the same time period and everyone is left with less.

    Sorry but at the end of the day , you can't have it both ways. Either you judge people on their accomplishments - which means we judge Fed as a 17 slam winner but have to judge Roddick as a 1 slam winner, or you open this can of worms that is circular logic - was fed that good or were Hewitt/Roddick etc mediocre.
     
    #13
  14. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I'm not using circular logic. I'm responding to the thread. This thread is designed to compare two generations of players. If you don't think I should do that, you're on the wrong thread. Maybe I should just "go by the numbers" and say, "Federer would be winning 3 Slams a year even now because they just suck" for you to be happy.
     
    #14
  15. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Would he still get mono in this scenario?
     
    #15
  16. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    2003-2004 was a tough field if we're being fair to Federer, it was in 2005 that things got ridiculous.

    Safin (knee)
    Haas (shoulder etc)
    Coria (mental breakdown)
    Gaudio (mental breakdown, 42-8 on clay in 2005)
    Roddick (Switch to Pusher forehand)
    Ferrero (Chicken pox, fractured rib)
    Kuerten (Hip)
    Nalbandian (Fat and unmotivated after his nephew died)
    Hewitt (Kids and injuries)
    Agassi (finally finished by sciatica after the USO)


    Essentially every single top player but Federer and the emerging Nadal was struck down. It's unprecedented. That's when players like Ferrer started getting into the top 5.

    It's worth nothing that Murray and Djoker started beating Federer right away, Murray in 2006 and Djoker in 2007 Montreal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    #16
  17. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Well Djokovic, Murray, current Federer, and Nadal all >>>>> anyone besides Federer from 2003-2006.
     
    #17
  18. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    No. If Nadal and Djokovic had the misfortune of having their primes coincide with Federer's, they'd have fewer Slams and Hewitt, Roddick, Safin would have more Slams if they had had a post-prime Federer in their path instead of a prime beast.

    Most of Nadal's slams are French Opens and we all know prime Federer is not going to deny Nadal a single French Open. As for the rest, given what a bad matchup Nadal is for Federer, and that he only reaches the finals of non clay slams when playing great for him it is easy to imagine him winning 2, 3, or even all 4 of his non clay slams even facing prime Federer. So the effect on Nadal would be minimal at best, in fact with the weaker overall field and not having to face prime Djokovic (a way worse matchup for him than any version of Federer) he might even do better.

    Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin in their primes today would be facing Nadal, Djokovic, an older Federer who is still a better player than they were even in their primes, in addition to Murray who is atleast a comparable level player to all of them, and if anything could all easily go slamless. Well probably still 2 slams still for Safin only who is near unbeatable in god mode. Hewitt and Roddick would be lucky to win a single slam today though. Neither Hewitt or Roddick won a slam in the era of prime Federer (2004-2007) either anyway, and 18 year old Nadal who coudnt get past 3rd rounds of hard court slams immediately blew past them in the rankings (forever) only halfway through the year while still in their primes in mid 2005.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2013
    #18
  19. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    in 2003 Safin and Hewitt were definitely better than Murray/Fed of 2012 in my opinion.
     
    #19
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Ummm Hewitt in 2003 dropped to #17 in the World at the end of the year. Safin missed almost the entire year of 2003. Did you actually follow tennis back then.
     
    #20
  21. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Silly NA again. This hypothetical would mean Djokovic, Murray and Nadal didn't exist.
     
    #21
  22. kragster

    kragster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,671
    Your opinion was that Nadal/Djoker etc are better but not much better than Hewitt/Roddick etc. Since raw accomplishments go against this assertion, the onus is on you to prove this, with a reference point that does not include Fed as it becomes circular logic as soon as Fed is involved .
     
    #22
  23. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    One thing I know is that Federer would have won all the FOs from 2009 to present had his peak years started in 2009.
     
    #23
  24. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I was thinking of Hewitt at the year end Championships of 2002 and a Safin at the AO of 2004 which is only a few weeks out from 2003 so you got me there.

    Still, both are way better than Murray/Fed/Ferrer and possibly injured Nadal of 2013.
     
    #24
  25. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Roddick is 3-7 against Nadal, with 8 of those matches coming when Roddick was past his prime. And he is 5-4 against Djokovic with ALL of those matches coming past his prime. He has shown he isn't too far below them right there, with a combined 8-11 record against them, where 17 of those matches have taken place after Roddick's prime.

    Hewitt is a combined 3-13 against Nadal and Djokovic but almost all those matches have come past his prime when he was injury-ridden. He still troubles Djokovic whenever they meet, which is pretty impressive considering how far below his peak-level Hewitt is right now. He is a 2-time Grand Slam champion (and a former #1 with a substantial number of weeks at the top), more than what Murray is right now. So if Murray is considered Djokovic's main competition right now, Hewitt is for certain not too far below Djokovic's calibre either, surely?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    #25
  26. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Milko? Oh no you didn't!
     
    #26
  27. rdis10093

    rdis10093 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,879
    Location:
    states
    last time fed played hewitt and andy r. he lost so.... who knows?
     
    #27
  28. paulorenzo

    paulorenzo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    03 agassi would give federer trouble right now.
     
    #28
  29. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,344
    AYE.. I would hate to think. Probably every non clay slam for 9-10 years straight (and counting). .Unless he faced God-mode Safin of course. But God-Mode Safin showed up maybe twice or three times in his entire career (USO 2000, AO 2005)

    The top field from 03-06 SUCKED royally. (Of course 2007 wasn't much better but Nadal had finally begun to emerge by then)


    Andre was still pretty serviceable, but old by that point.. hardly in his prime anymore. His prime more or less ended in 2000 or 2001. He was still capable of beating Roger even at an old age, but with a bad back and slowing movement, he couldn't hang through an entire match with Rog (2003-2005) As Charles Barkley says, "Father time is undefeated"
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    #29
  30. paulorenzo

    paulorenzo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    to be clear, federer at age 31 would have more trouble with 03 agassi than federer at 22 did.
     
    #30
  31. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Federer owned the H2H with Safin 10-2. I know Safin was plagued by injuries but you can't just assume Safin would be in form and Fed would have trouble with him. Federer would still win 85% of their matches. And Safin was only 1-1/2 years older than Federer.
     
    #31
  32. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    This.

    Post-prime Fed lost to post-prime Hewitt and Roddick in Halle and Miami - prime Hewitt and Roddick would probably give him plenty of trouble.

    And prime Agassi would as well.
     
    #32
  33. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Now I've read some dumb posts, this one is not worse than my sig, but it is the second dumbest thing I've read on here.

    In 2003 Safin did not play RG, WIM, USO or YEC. Hewitt lost in the first round of WIM as the #1 seed and dropped from #1 to #17. How in anyone's right mind were they better than Murray and Fed last year?
     
    #33
  34. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,225
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I think what people need to understand that it was nadal's forehand that made Fed's backhand better. So when he is able to handle his backhand with guys like Murray and Nole its because Nadal went after it time and time again and fed had to improve it. Get those guys out of the picture and Fed although has a great backhand is not as strong as it is today so those guys would be able to exploit it. The two things better today in feds game is the serve and the backhand. But he's lost his explosiveness, court coverage, recovery and the once legendary forehand (especially the one on the run). I honestly think if he had today's backhand back in 2006 or 2007 he wouldve beaten Rafa in those FO finals but as Fed's backhand kept getting better so did Rafa as a whole. But to answer OP's question Id say about 23-24
     
    #34
  35. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    I like how you say Hewitt and Roddick were past their prime in most of the matches.

    First of all clarify what you think were their prime years.

    Secondly, Rafa lost to Roddick in 2004 USO. He was 17 against the defending champ, so if Roddick's post prime losses (assuming you mean 2010 onwards) don't count, then neither does Nadal pre-prime loss. In fact (even though it was on clay) 17 year old beat Roddick in Davis Cup later that year. In their only 2007 encounter on HC, Rafa also won that. In their only grass encounter, Rafa won that also.

    As for Hewitt, all 3 of his wins came against pre-prime Nadal at the Australian Open x2 and 1 in Toronto 04. The first one was 2 tight sets then Hewitt ran away with it (interestingly if Rafa had won that match he would've met Fed in the 2004 AO). The second one was Toronto which went to 3 sets. The third one was 2005 AO and Hewitt had a tough 5 set battle against him. This is PRIME Hewitt struggling against kid Rafa before he won his first major. THeir grass encounter doesn't matter since Rafa had to retire the match at 1 set all.

    If prime Hewitt and Roddick were playing in this era they wouldn't even come close to winning a major. They'd at best make a few semi's here and there and possibly fluke their way to a final once or twice. Look how weak Hewitt's 02 WIM draw was, do you really think he'd win it if post-prime Fed or prime Rafa, Joker or Murray entered? Not a chance.
     
    #35
  36. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Blah blah blah. All speculation. I could just as easily claim Roddick and Hewitt would be 39-time Slam Champions in this era. Try again.
     
    #36
  37. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Just like your sig yeah?
     
    #37
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    bah, what a pathetic joke ...

    roddick did actually beat murray in wimbledon 2009

    2002 hewitt would have a darn good chance of beating djoker/murray on grass .... rafa is better on grass, but it would be a close contest ...hewitt of 2002 would also definitely have beaten fed of wimbledon 2010 ....

    and yeah, roddick/hewitt would also have a darn good chance of taking out nadal/djoker/murray @ the USO ... they'd could also take out djok of AO 2009/10, murray of AO 09/11 etc etc ...(actually roddick did take out djoker @ AO 2009 )

    and regarding AO 05, rafa actually played a good match there, it wasn't that he was sub-par, yet took hewitt to 5 sets ....

    when you are talking about some semis here and there and an occasional final, you should be referring to streaky, but occasionally dangerous players like berdych, soderling etc ... not much better players like hewitt, roddick etc ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    #38
  39. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Probably 20 something slams with at least one calendar slam.

    Thing about Fed's competition in that time period is that they were actually very good players but the most consistent day in day out was probably... Roddick. Yes, that Roddick, Fed's pigeon, who matched up so incredibly bad to him that every victory was like Godsend for him.

    Safin was one of the most talented players I've ever seen but injury prone and with serious mental walkabouts. Hewitt was a terrific competitor but 2005 was the last good year he had. Guys like Ljubicic,Nalbandian,Gonzalez had brilliance in spurts but they weren't the pictures of consistency. Davydenko always had the skills but simply couldn't get it together against Fed in slams.

    If we move towards the younger generation Fed faced with guys like Nadal,Djokovic,Murray we will see that they usually turn up in later stages of most tourneys, especially once they hit their prime. Yes, more homogenized surfaced probably helped them a bit but guys from Fed's generation proved that they could win or at least get very far on slower surfaces as well, Ljubicic won IW, Gonzalez made SF in RG back in 2009, Roddick played one of the most brilliant finals of his career on the "slow" grass of WB 2009 and so on. It's just that they couldn't do it day in-day out even in their prime/peak, which is when Federer amassed many slams. It doesn't mean that if they would've been more consistent they would have necessarily beaten Fed but they would have been more worthy rivals, in my eyes at least.

    Roddick, for all his faults, was good enough to meet Fed 24 times(usually in QF/SF/F stage). Contrast that to someone like Safin, a supposed rival, who only met Fed about 13 times in his whole career. Meanwhile Fed has already met Nadal 28 times, Djoko 29 times, Murray 20 times(and Murray only start to rise since 2008 )
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    #39
  40. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,725
    Probably around the same. Prime Roddick could overpower him like a few of the other big hitters do these days (just look at Wimbledon 2009..just lol at those thinking he'd be a walkover for post-prime Fed)

    Hewitt even in '04-'05 pushed Fred to losing sets in a lot of matches and gives him tough matches when they play now and that's after 5 surgeries..even a win at Halle when Federer hadn't lost there in over 6 years, a prime Hewitt would definitely have his chances at Wimbledon and US Open.

    Safin again could overpower him, wouldn't even necessarily need to be 'god mode' to beat current Fed, though would still lose more than he won due to inconsistency.

    Agassi at any age is tough, pushed him a lot in his prime and could probably outlast current Fed..even at 35 he had Roger on a string sideline to sideline in that US Open final for 3 sets, haven't seen anyone else do something like that since.

    Nalbandian could cause an upset anywhere, was a very consistently good player from '03 to around the '06 French Open where he probably beats Fed if not for the abdominal strain.

    Then there were the actual clay courters as well -- Ferrero/Guga/Coria/Gaudio/Moya as well as Nadal..would still have trouble winning even 1 RG I think.

    Explain to me what year Federer would be able to beat 2006 Nadal at RG, or even Guga for that matter to get the calender slam. He might even have won less as prime Roddick might not lose that Wimbledon 2009 match and Fed was there for the taking in 2008.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
    #40
  41. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,978
    Safin at AO 2005 wasn't at his best and has played much better than that SF a number of times. Did you not watch the US Open 2000, or AO 2004 prior to the final, I could go on because it's clear that Safin wasn't some flash in the pan guy; 2 slam wins in completely different eras with horrific injuries between those wins (and after AO 2005 which killed his career basically). I assure you, Safin playing great once every eon is just a myth.





    People in this thread are actually forgetting that as well as Federer was playing from 2003-2007, he was actually not that great after and could play phenomenally poor tennis, Roddick had more success against Federer - although Roddick 02-04 and parts of 05/06 were clearly his best years.
     
    #41
  42. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,029
    Location:
    Weak era
    AO-Maybe one or two more at most, nowadays Berdych and Tsonga can overpower Fed, Safin overpowered peak Fed, there's also Nalbandian who beat him in 2003 and gave him a tough match in 2004 AO.

    FO- Baby Rafa FTW, presuming players don't age and thus Rafa wouldn't have worn down in 2009 Fed would have no FOs.

    Wimbledon- he wouldn't be winning any Wimbledons past 2008 with Roddick, Hewitt and baby Rafa still in the field, 2004 Roddick especially would put a smackdown on post 2009 version of Fed on grass and I think he would have beaten him in 2009 Wimbledon final.

    USO-Roddick was actually not that far having a 2-1 set lead over Fed in 2006 USO, Hewitt gave him a tough match in 2005 USO SF and old Agassi was still giving him a run for his money there, he'd have a field day jerking current Fed from corner to corner, 2012 USO version of Fed wouldn't be winning USO in any year so I'd say 2009-2011 USO Fed would get one more, two at most with the best chance coming in 2011.

    So right now he would be sitting at 17-19 slams (in my opinion of course).


    Yeah because if 2005 and 2006 Fed couldn't beat "baby" Rafa I'm sure 2008-2012 would have beaten him atleast once, hilarious logic.

    Heck, even 2011 Fed who played great at FO couldn't even beat Nadal in "massive decline".

    Actually Roddick pushed Fed harder at Wimbledon than Fed (or Novak for that matter) ever did Nadal at FO so I guess we can conclude that Nadal's CC competition utterly sucks, his main rival was his pidgeon Fed who matches up horribly against him on clay and is about as good as a player on that surface as Roddick was on HC and grass.
     
    #42
  43. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,978
    Zagor, Roddick in 2004 v Federer 2006 at the US Open, who wins in your opinion?
     
    #43
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,029
    Location:
    Weak era
    Federer in 5 IMO.
     
    #44
  45. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,978
    Agree, I think Roddick's approaches screwed him over at the 06 final, in 2007 his approaches were just as bad. Shame because he was good from the baseline in those matches. He wouldn't have had that problem with his 2003/04 game because he didn't even venture to the net.
     
    #45
  46. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,029
    Location:
    Weak era
    Agree, with Roddick it was always his approaches that were the issue, more so than his volleys (which actually got decent over the years).

    2003/2004 Roddick did venture into the net on occasion but it was mostly on weak replies from his FH which was at its fearsome best in those years.
     
    #46
  47. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Well it's very hard to say how well Hewitt would've performed against Murray considering they've only played once.

    Regarding Rafa playing well in 05 AO, I can say the same thing about MANY of Fed's post prime losses so don't even go there.

    Hewitt probably yes at his best would've had a good chance against 2010 WIM Fed, but he wouldn't have beaten Nadal there. Neither would Roddick.

    Djoker has only been stopped by Federer at the USO from 07-09. His 09 AO loss was mainly due to heat exhaustion where he had to retire the match.

    And let's just say hypothetically they did beat one of Djoker, Murray, Fed or Rafa at the majors, the thought of them beating 2, possibly 3 in a row to win it is ridiculous. Heck, Fed's only done it twice IINM 08USO and 12WIM? Rafa's done it 4 times? Not sure but off the top of my head 08WIM, 06RG, 08RG, 11RG. With Novak what's he done it 3 times: 2011AO, 2011 USO, 2012 AO? If Roddick was at his best (like 04 WIM) then 2010 WIM would probably be his best chance taking out Fed and Novak like Berdych did, but I don't think he's getting past Nadal as well up there, Rafa played pretty well in the second week taking out Soderling, Murray and Berdych.

    Oh, and the thought of those 2 breaking into the top 4 is also ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
    #47
  48. Fiji

    Fiji Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,189
    Somewhere close to 20-22.
     
    #48
  49. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    abmk posting examples of Hewitt and Roddick being able to beat players in events they lost in the quarters (and where the person who beat them never won the title, and usually got spanked in the semis), and equating that somehow to chances for them to win those particular events somehow. Too funny.
     
    #49
  50. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,415
    I think 31 yo fed would handle prime roddick quite easily.

    one of the biggest Problems roddick always had was the he couldn't handle feds slice. fed would slice it to his BH and then roddick could just hit a popup.

    that is a Problem that many two handers have with fed.
     
    #50

Share This Page