Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   If Nadal had won those 3 Slam finals against Djokovic, he'd be gunning for Federer! (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=449275)

Mike Sams 12-28-2012 01:43 PM

If Nadal had won those 3 Slam finals against Djokovic, he'd be gunning for Federer!
 
He wouldn't let anybody or anything stand in his way. He'd have tied Sampras, then looked to break Sampras' 14 Slams and then go gunning hard after Federer's slam tally.
Djokovic RUINED everything for Nadal off clay! Everybody can see it! Basically Federer should put a flag of Djokovic up on his rooftop because Djokovic is the man who ended Nadal's dream of surpassing Federer's Slam count.
You think if Nadal was at 14 Slams, he'd be taking half the year off and playing golf in Mallorca and playing poker? He'd be heavily training, going into the AO in supreme shape and ready to wage war to bag Slam #15!!!

Candide 12-28-2012 01:45 PM

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Steve0904 12-28-2012 01:46 PM

But he didn't so this thread is useless.

//

Phoenix1983 12-28-2012 01:47 PM

If it hadn't been for Djoker, Nadal would be on 14 slams, including having won five consecutive (FO 2011 - FO 2012).

Thus he would be probably ahead of Sampras and arguably at Laver's level.

Who knows whether he would catch Fed though...?

Mike Sams 12-28-2012 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve0904 (Post 7083737)
But he didn't so this thread is useless.

//

But if he did, he wouldn't be taking half a year off and playing golf and poker. Djokovic sank Nadak's sails and stopped him from chasing history. That's my point here.

Mike Sams 12-28-2012 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983 (Post 7083740)
If it hadn't been for Djoker, Nadal would be on 14 slams, including having won five consecutive (FO 2011 - FO 2012).

Thus he would be probably ahead of Sampras and arguably at Laver's level.

Who knows whether he would catch Fed though...?

That's what I said. Nobody else on the tour is strong enough mentally to stop Nadal in a Slam final. That's why I believe Nadal has lost motivation, especially after Federer bagged Wimbledon this year. That put Nadal further back in his quest to surpass Federer.

Bobby Jr 12-28-2012 01:53 PM

Ever wonder why Federer has been so complimentary of Murray as of late? The more Murray achieves the less Nadal can.

After his massive 2010 it looked highly likely Nadal could catch up to Federer but since then he's only got one major closer in the last two years - two years right in the middle of his prime.

I'd say unless he wins two majors in 2013 his chances of overtaking Federer are all-but gone.

Ico 12-28-2012 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candide (Post 7083734)
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Beat me to it.

Retaliation 12-28-2012 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candide (Post 7083734)
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

I agree with your analysis. If I were 8" taller, I'd be a basketball player, if I were 8" longer, I'd be a porn star. If I were a good liar, I'd be a politician. Hey, we could go on with this forever...

pringles 12-28-2012 01:58 PM

It's speculation. Murray was in fantastic form in this year's AO - he could've easily beaten Nadal in the final "if there was no Djokovic" to stop him in the semi-final stage. Andy would be at 50/50 to beat Nadal in the final if the same Murray who took Djokovic to the brink of defeat in the SF showed up in the next round.

Federer played excellent at the US open in 2011 up until the 3rd set against Djokovic. If there are any majors where Fed can (or could) still beat Nadal it was at the US Open. I would give Roger a pretty good chance of beating Nadal there, unlike at the FO and AO.

The only major where Nadal was a pretty safe bet was Wimbledon in 2011, he took out Murray, Federer lost early and once again with Djokovic not existing Nadal could take the title.

But once again - this is all speculation. By the same token look how many majors Nadal has taken away from Federer.

underground 12-28-2012 02:01 PM

If it weren't for Fed, Djoker would have had 9 slam finals in a row.

.
.
.
.

If it weren't for Djoker, Fed would have had 19 slam finals in a row.

Cup8489 12-28-2012 02:02 PM

If Not for Nadal, Fed could be sitting at 23+ majors right now.

Ifs ands and buts don't count.

Mike Sams 12-28-2012 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cup8489 (Post 7083778)
If Not for Nadal, Fed could be sitting at 23+ majors right now.

Ifs ands and buts don't count.

If not for Federer, Murray and Djokovic, Nadal would have 18 Slams right now.

Agassifan 12-28-2012 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cup8489 (Post 7083778)
If Not for Nadal, Fed could be sitting at 23+ majors right now.

Ifs ands and buts don't count.

yeah but it doesn't change anything because he is still the GOAT

Retaliation 12-28-2012 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Sams (Post 7083787)
If not for Federer, Murray and Djokovic, Nadal would have 18 Slams right now.

If not for Federer, Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal; Delpo, Ferrer, Roddick, Tsonga, etc. would have at least 2-4 more grand slams than they have right now.

monfed 12-28-2012 02:22 PM

Djokovic denied Ralph 3 slams but Djokovic also denied Federer 2 AOs and perhaps a USO(in 2011), so at best Djokovic saved 1 slam(if you dont wanna consider USO 2011). That's not a whole lot.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse