View Single Post
Old 01-31-2013, 03:33 PM   #21
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi View Post
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.
Silly NA again. This hypothetical would mean Djokovic, Murray and Nadal didn't exist.
Prisoner of Birth is offline   Reply With Quote