Probably 20 something slams with at least one calendar slam.
Thing about Fed's competition in that time period is that they were actually very good players but the most consistent day in day out was probably... Roddick. Yes, that Roddick, Fed's pigeon, who matched up so incredibly bad to him that every victory was like Godsend for him.
Safin was one of the most talented players I've ever seen but injury prone and with serious mental walkabouts. Hewitt was a terrific competitor but 2005 was the last good year he had. Guys like Ljubicic,Nalbandian,Gonzalez had brilliance in spurts but they weren't the pictures of consistency. Davydenko always had the skills but simply couldn't get it together against Fed in slams.
If we move towards the younger generation Fed faced with guys like Nadal,Djokovic,Murray we will see that they usually turn up in later stages of most tourneys, especially once they hit their prime. Yes, more homogenized surfaced probably helped them a bit but guys from Fed's generation proved that they could win or at least get very far on slower surfaces as well, Ljubicic won IW, Gonzalez made SF in RG back in 2009, Roddick played one of the most brilliant finals of his career on the "slow" grass of WB 2009 and so on. It's just that they couldn't do it day in-day out even in their prime/peak, which is when Federer amassed many slams. It doesn't mean that if they would've been more consistent they would have necessarily beaten Fed but they would have been more worthy rivals, in my eyes at least.
Roddick, for all his faults, was good enough to meet Fed 24 times(usually in QF/SF/F stage). Contrast that to someone like Safin, a supposed rival, who only met Fed about 13 times in his whole career. Meanwhile Fed has already met Nadal 28 times, Djoko 29 times, Murray 20 times(and Murray only start to rise since 2008 )
Last edited by namelessone : 01-31-2013 at 10:41 PM.