Originally Posted by dominikk1985
He certainly would have been good with his talent as would nadal but you have to consider that the talent pool in soccer is way larger. A tennis career from age 5-18 costs more than half a million dollars (coaches, travel...) so it is still a rich mens sport.
and we all know that most superior athletes come from a poor background (like all the runners, basketball and football players...). this is because there are more of them but also because they have more need to succeed. probably there are a lot of soccer players out there who would have the talent to be better tennis players then fed and nadal.
Maybe fed would have been as good as messi but the chance is equally high that he would only be a bench striker in some first league club. I'm not sure if his speed is enough to be as good as messi or ronaldo. he is super quick and moves great but we would need to see how fast he is in a 60 feet sprint.
Tennis is a far more difficult sport, both technically and physically, than football.
You have to put in vastly more hours of practice to achieve top level success.
When you look at top class tennis players, the skill and cosistency is simply mind boggling.
Far more people play football but you can get away with a lot less skill and dedication.
The likes of Federer, Murray and Nadal would find it much easier to change careers and slot into top class football.
A top footballer would have absolutely no chance of slotting into tennis.