What if Federer had a REAL rival at his peak?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Magnificent!, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. Magnificent!

    Magnificent! New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    No one can question Federer's natural talent, he makes the game look elegant and effortless at times... but what would Fed' have achieved if he had a rival of equal (or nearly equal) ability? Would he have been strong enough mentally to cope...and how many grandslams would he have now?
     
    #1
  2. vtmike

    vtmike Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,658
    Location:
    Texas
    If Fed was in his prime now (both mental & physical), he would still be blowing off the competition everywhere else except on clay...and Samprastards would be saying the current field is really weak ;)
     
    #2
  3. miyagi

    miyagi Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,261
    Fed would still have tonnes of slams but I think he would have a few less. There is no doubt Fed was missing a real rival until Nadal arrived.

    Fed and Nadal have been good for each other and tennis, I dont know why Fed & Nadal fans can't get along without calling each other names. Before Fed was Sampras who Fed admire so I don't see why there should be tension there either

    If I had to guess a number I would say 10 slams...
     
    #3
  4. Chelsea_Kiwi

    Chelsea_Kiwi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    Not another one of these threads... If he had someone equal to or near equal to when Fed was in his prime Fed would still win alot but not as many (like 11) depending what this guys style was like. It would mean though in the long run that he would win more as he would be better prepared for tough matches against players like Nadal etc.
     
    #4
  5. Andyk028

    Andyk028 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    811
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    You can't just discredit players like Hewitt and Safin..during their prime years they were both definite forces to be reckoned with.
     
    #5
  6. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    LOOOOL..You bet! :lol: , :wink:
     
    #6
  7. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    This is a silly question. Its like asking if Nadal had an equal rival on clay, would he still be as dominant? The answer in both cases is NO. If Fed had an equal rival, then his rival would probably win a few slams because he is just as good as Fed, right?

    A better question is whether Fed would be as dominant if he played in a different era. Such as how would he do if he was 10 years older and played with Sampras and Agassi?
     
    #7
  8. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    federer did have a rival, Roddick

    cept he blew him off the court every time.

    that is how roger rolled during his prime playing years. even his toughest rival was loosing to him with a bad percentage.

    if roger was 24 right now. tennis would be the greatest sport on earth to watch hands down without argument. but unfortunately superstars come and go in 4-7 year streaks and its hard to squeeze 2 into the same time period.
     
    #8
  9. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    that is something id love to have seen, to me agassi is proably the most awesome player of my generation. i could care less about stats, i look for drive, heart and determination.
     
    #9
  10. tangerine

    tangerine Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,194
    Unfortunately Roger dominated a really weak tennis era and the lack of true tennis talent made Roger look far more brilliant than he really is. When Nadal came along he blew the lid off the facade, so we are watching the "real" Federer now, exactly how he used to play when he was younger.

    :)
     
    #10
  11. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    R O F L

    what u gonna say when this happens to nadal after his prime years? i bet the reason or "excuse" will be much more favorable to him.
     
    #11
  12. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal
     
    #12
  13. DarthFed

    DarthFed Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,468
    Location:
    Queens, NY
    Which is why they weren't :roll:
     
    #13
  14. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Well Nadal wasnt a real rival back then to Fed since Nadal was only really a great clay court player and was just becoming a great player on grass while his Hardcourt game left much to be desired. Imagine if Fed would have had to deal with Nadal at the slams on all the surfaces back in 04-07. Nadal would be the one with most of the slams while Roger would be behind in the slam count most likely
     
    #14
  15. Magnificent!

    Magnificent! New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    I think Federer is mentally weak now and when he was at his prime, but there wasn't anyone good enough to put him under enough pressure to expose this. Roddick a rival to Federer? You must be joking! They both knew before each match that Federer would win. Safin never lived upto his potential, only twice in his career, once against Sampras and once against federer. Hewitt had about as good a chance as Roddick. No one else comes to mind...says it all really. If Federer had a rival of equal ability, I think he would have about as many majors as Agassi and no more.
     
    #15
  16. DarthFed

    DarthFed Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    4,468
    Location:
    Queens, NY
    But he wasn't that's the point I'm making, speculation on the past is pretty pointless
     
    #16
  17. vtmike

    vtmike Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,658
    Location:
    Texas
    Agree...and again using the same logic the current field is more pathetic! Samprastards will make this exact same argument IF Nadal starts to get close to Sampras' record of 14! and then all the *******s will start flaming him for it :rolleyes:
     
    #17
  18. tennis_hand

    tennis_hand Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,427
    he had his rival, but he beat them all.

    your question is well before he had no rival. end of discussion.
     
    #18
  19. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Whether Federphiles care to admit it or not, the competition wasn't that great when Roger was dominating. Now if he had a rival, or a couple of more challengers at the top how would Roger do??

    I still feel he 's gifted enough to spend a significant time at #1 and would still be winning slams. Would there 230+ weeks consecutively? Maybe not. I also doubt if there would be 3 slams a year 3 times or 5 consecutive titles at both Wimbledon and the US Open. He'd still have multiple slam years I think, but not 3 slams a year in 3 times.

    Yes Roger's dominance has a lot to woth Federer himself, but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you believe the softness of the field around him didn't aid him.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #19
  20. Magnificent!

    Magnificent! New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    "he had his rival, but he beat them all.

    your question is well before he had no rival. end of discussion."

    It's obvious that he beat them all. My point was, how would he respond to a REAL challenge, against someone who had a 50/50 chance of beating him. His achievements would be more respected for sure. He's only 27, for someone who has been mentioned as the GOAT, he's still young enough to make a case of it, now, WHEN HE REALLY HAS GOT SOME COMPETITION!
     
    #20
  21. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Lets assume Federer was 4 years younger. I would say that right now Federer would be #1 in the world and would be the best player on all surfaces except clay. I do think he might lose a few slams to guys like Murray/Djoker/Nadal, but he would have at least 8 probably.
     
    #21
  22. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Sure Fed may have still managed in the high single digits so far even with Djoker, Murray, or Nadal around. Would Fed have 13 slams, consectutive slam finals appearances as he did 04-07 with those 3 around? Highlky unlikely. Would he have 13 slams only by 27 years of age? Hell freaking no.


    Take Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzales, Davy, etc out of the equation, Fed aint coming out of every slam the winner if he has to go through the top guys today. I see Fed coming out with quite a few slams but not 13 slams if these are his obstacles at every slam.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #22
  23. thejoe

    thejoe Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    England
    I think he would. I think you overate the threat posed by Murray and Djoker to Federer in his real prime. Federer has a clear lead in the head-to-head against Djokovic, and Murray lost in their one slam meeting. Nadal would give him trouble, but he was well and truly around from 05-07 anyway. What exactly makes you think Murray is so much better than the 04-07 competition? The guy has been around for 8 months in the top 5. I honestly don't see how he is better than Hewitt was. And you think that Simon, Del Potro are better than Davydenko, Roddick etc? Roddick and Davydenko are still in the top 5, and Nalbandian was better than those two are.
     
    #23
  24. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    We dont know how even prime Fed would manage this challenge presented today if it was back then. Has Fed declined so fast so quick being an automatic 3 slam a year winner on year and only 1 slam the next and now he cant even a single tournament? Hes only 27. No.. his confidence has waned. WOuld it wane back then as well under the pressure of better competiton? Possibly.

    Not to mention Nadal is a much more solid all around, all surface, smarter, less defensive player today now, than back then. The competition increasing has had some to do with the Fed "declining issue". It aint all Fed.
     
    #24
  25. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    Fed is a fraud. When he was in his prime the top 4 had flake and lube and baby nadal(not in his peak yet) so he piled up the slams and masters series... Now look at the awesome top 4 we have nowadays, no place for mugs like flake and lube.... Fed's era in his prime was ridiculously weak to allow the likes of boredo and monoancic to be in the top 10 and it's not a coincidence that now that we have a strong top 4 fed can't win m1000 titles anymore and needs a miracle to fluke a slam like uso 2008....
     
    #25
  26. Magnificent!

    Magnificent! New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    Federer is 27, not too old to show how good he still is. He has inscentive, he wants to beat Sampras's record. He;s been lucky with injuries over his carrer, momo and recently his back the only real hurdles. He's dominated rallies for most of his career so he's low mileage.
    Murray is a much bigger talent than Davydenko and Roddick, can't believe you can't see it. Infact, Murray is the last person the top 3 want to play, now he has arrived, forget the past head to heads. It will be different from now on. Nalbandian? Not dedicated, having potential is not good enough.
     
    #26
  27. thejoe

    thejoe Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    England
    I assume you're joking, yes? Murray, Djokovic, really that much better? One slam between them? Ringing bells?
     
    #27
  28. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    I personally don't see how Murray has proved himself over Safin, Roddick and Hewitt.
     
    #28
  29. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Murray is just beginning his rise to dominance and is already proving himself over Roger and Djoker has a slam win over Roger at the AO . Hewitt got his only 2 slams when? The 01-03 time frame. Sampras and Agassi were just about finished and Fed had yet to begin to dominate.

    Murray and Djoker will have better careers for themselves then Hewitt did when its all said and done
     
    #29
  30. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Your posts are becoming worse by the minute. I would take peak Federer over any other player any day.

    To the OP: Fed had a real rival - his name is Nalbandian, who gave Federer a lot of trouble and had a winning H2H against him until Fed has figured him out and turned it around.
     
    #30
  31. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Nalbandian a real rival? LOL!!! Are u kidding me. When was Nalbandian a real rival to anyone. THe guy underperformed at the slams like crazy and cant even keep himself in shape. The guy is a clown.. Always has been. Murray and Djoker are accomplishing more than Nalbandian already and Nalby has been around for 6-7 years already. 6 years in and Nalby has yet to even win a slam
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #31
  32. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    when its fed going against no competition its , hes a fraud, but when nadal plays clay, with ABSOLUTELY no competition hes a great.. im confused here
     
    #32
  33. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Sure, he's a clown, which is why he had a winning H2H over Federer and still has one over Nadal. Right...whatever.
     
    #33
  34. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Saying Nalbandian was a rival is like Saying Safin was a rival. These guys couldnt keep it together to even be considered rivals to any player. Both have a long distinguished history of disappearing or underperforming their whole careers. Nalbandian would disappear at the slams and Safin would disappear for half a decade.
     
    #34
  35. thejoe

    thejoe Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    England
    Get used to it.
     
    #35
  36. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    He is a clown and people overrate him like crazy around here. HE has a winning h2h over Roger. Where the hell is Nalbandian's Slams then if he has a winning record over Fed? His slams are not there because he couldnt beat those inferior to him at the slams. HE underperformed most of his career and disappeared when it mattered most. Nalbandian was never a rival and Fed rarely had to deal with David at the slams because he was getting by bums most of the time
     
    #36
  37. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Both are headcases, I'll agree to that. But funny that Nalby has a winning record over both Nadal and Murray. Safin too I think against either Djokovic or Murray. Yesterday in the "Is Fed consistency hurting him" thread you asked someone to give you any proof that Fed's era was just as strong as today. You got 2 replies, full of facts, of which you of course completley ignored. I'm not going to post that again (it's your problem for asking and not reading). I am going to say that any claim that Fed's competition was any weaker than today is a joke. If anything, it was stronger (at least on clay).
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #37
  38. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    He had a winning streak against Fed. The later has mangaed to turn it around to his favor. Nalby is a headcase, but when he's on, he can be nearly unbeatable. Same goes for Safin.
     
    #38
  39. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Murray and Djoker are going to eclipse Safin and Nalbandian. These guys while maybe not be considered all time greats, they are at least pretty darn consistent and do not just pull disappearing acts at will.
     
    #39
  40. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Sure, which is why Safin, in the end of his career, and on his worst surface, defeated Djokovic in straight sets at Wimbeldon 2008.
    Roddick, another "joke" as you claim, has defeated Djokovic twice in a row this year. I wrote many more facts in yeserday's thread. You really have no case about the competition being weak. If anything, it was stronger.
     
    #40
  41. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    Oh dear. If Fatass Nalbandian, who never won a slam, was Fed's biggest competition of his generation born in late 70s-early 80s then we have to laugh out loud.
     
    #41
  42. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Career wise Djoker and Murray will eclipse Safin and David. Yes they will. Probably far surpass both players. Safin no doubt had the talent to be one of the best. And on any day he could defeat anyone. But history will look at Safin as underperforming, underachieving, headcase who never achieve what people were expecting him too.

    Why do u say the competiton was stronger in 04-06 exactly. Djoker has only been on the radar since mid-late 07. He already has a slam win over Roger, YEC, Rome etc. Roddick has played Fed how many times now? Hes had how many opportunities to beat Fed and win slams? Years and Years worth of opportunities, and through all of it has managed one freakin slam.

    Djoker IMO already has had a better career than Roddick and Roddick has been around for years. Djoker managed a slam win over Roger. While Roddick has had 10000000 opportunities and has done nada
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #42
  43. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    You are clearly ignoring every thing I write, so this discussion is over.
     
    #43
  44. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    I figured you could not explain why u feel the 04-07 compeition is better than it is today
     
    #44
  45. thejoe

    thejoe Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    England
    ^He just did. He also acknowledges that it is wasted on you as you won't really respond to what he says, you'll just post the same crap you usually do.
     
    #45
  46. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    And I am refuting it. I explained why David and Marat were never rivals to Fed. Yet he is trying to convince me they were. How exactly were they considered rivals at all much less Fed? These guys were nowhere to be found the slams 90 some percent of the time. Rivals dont do that
     
    #46
  47. sheq

    sheq Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,012
    Location:
    Istanbul-Turkey
    hold on people what the ... are you talking about ?? when did you star watching tennis after 2007 2008 when ? ı have been following it hotly since 2000 and witnessed all the up and downs and reigns by roger nadal and arguably weak era between 2001 and 2003...

    If you are that close to tennis and have some knowledge about it you must definetly know that federer has the best ability and skill over murray djoker nadal whoever..( for me on a good day he is the best ever but his good days are really fading away )..

    plus,, he is the no2 in this terribly strong field,, even if he is just choking nowadays so it would be easy to figure out if he were at his best what would happen ?

    Roger federer is playing at his %30 40 in these days and still finals at all slams ı must say this era is looking weaker with this aspect because he was at his best most of the time and still missing some finals at the slams..
     
    #47
  48. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Thank you, actually someone with a brain on this forum
     
    #48
  49. Magnificent!

    Magnificent! New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    He is not no2 in the world right now that is very obvious, doesn't matter what anyone says. He is living off points he earned a year ago. realisically he is maybe 4thj or 5th at present.
    On a good day, Federer has a 35-40% chance of beating the top 3.
     
    #49
  50. sheq

    sheq Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,012
    Location:
    Istanbul-Turkey
    you mean offical atp world tour ranking right ? ı dont say or anyone says this ranking calculates this!!!.. and if he is living with the last year points how he earned these points the question is by beating the top 3 with his %30 40..

    with his % 75 80 just watch the us open semi final and final to see what was going on..
     
    #50

Share This Page