Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   how many slams would fed have won if he faced 03-06 opponents his whole career? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453270)

dominikk1985 01-31-2013 12:31 PM

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

Prisoner of Birth 01-31-2013 12:34 PM

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.

NadalAgassi 01-31-2013 12:38 PM

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.

dominikk1985 01-31-2013 12:40 PM

how many clay slams would he have won against the early to mid 00 guys?

wangs78 01-31-2013 12:41 PM

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.

dominikk1985 01-31-2013 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth (Post 7182820)
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.

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.

kishnabe 01-31-2013 01:02 PM

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.

tennis_badger 01-31-2013 01:05 PM

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.

kragster 01-31-2013 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth (Post 7182820)
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.

So a 11 slam winner and a 6 slam winner are not overwhelmingly better than a 2 slam winner and a 1 slam winner?

Prisoner of Birth 01-31-2013 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kragster (Post 7182881)
So a 11 slam winner and a 6 slam winner are not overwhelmingly better than a 2 slam winner and a 1 slam winner?

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.

tennis_pro 01-31-2013 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7182829)
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.

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

Djokodal Fan 01-31-2013 01:25 PM

where is the option for 0?

kragster 01-31-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth (Post 7182918)
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.

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.

Prisoner of Birth 01-31-2013 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kragster (Post 7182948)
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.

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.

forzamilan90 01-31-2013 01:55 PM

Would he still get mono in this scenario?

BeHappy 01-31-2013 01:57 PM

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.

NadalAgassi 01-31-2013 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis_pro (Post 7182921)
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

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

NadalAgassi 01-31-2013 02:21 PM

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.

BeHappy 01-31-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7183026)
Well Djokovic, Murray, current Federer, and Nadal all >>>>> anyone besides Federer from 2003-2006.

in 2003 Safin and Hewitt were definitely better than Murray/Fed of 2012 in my opinion.

NadalAgassi 01-31-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kragster (Post 7182948)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeHappy (Post 7183047)
in 2003 Safin and Hewitt were definitely better than Murray/Fed of 2012 in my opinion.

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:17 PM.

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