How many Roland Garros titles would Djok, Fed, Ferrer, Murray win in 1990s and 1980s?

[RAFA2005RG]

How many Roland Garros titles would Djok, Fed, Ferrer, Murray win in 1990s and 1980s?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

How many Roland Garros titles would Djok, Fed, Ferrer, Murray win in 1990s and 1980s?

Edited Post :

Assuming they didn't have to face each other, and especially Nadal.

Djokovic - 1
Federer - 3
Ferrer - 0
Murray - 0

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Djokovic - 1
Federer - 1
Nadal - 9
Ferrer - 0
Murray - 0

Assuming they were all the same age

Nadal 9? He has 7 against weaker field so figure out against Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Kuwrten...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Nadal 9? He has 7 against weaker field so figure out against Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Kuwrten...

Fewer hardcourts, less strain on his knees, more longevity. And Nadal has won 7 so far. He could win 2 or 3 more. Either way, I was under the impression that it was the current field playing back then. All those awesome players in the same time would just be too much.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Djokovic - 1
Federer - 1
Nadal - 9
Ferrer - 0
Murray - 0

Assuming they were all the same age

9 for Nadal is delusional. He may not even win 9 now even against a clay court field much weaker than the 80s and 90s. Now if it were the 70s clay field minus Borg I would agree with 9.

Without Nadal I think Federer could win 2, but wouldnt make finals as consistently as he does today. Without Nadal plus the deeper field probably 0.

Djokovic about the same, if we are talking about his projected entire career (not just his career one which is only halfway through as it is).

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

9 for Nadal is delusional. He may not even win 9 now even against a clay court field much weaker than the 80s and 90s. Now if it were the 70s clay field minus Borg I would agree with 9.

Without Nadal I think Federer could win 2, but wouldnt make finals as consistently as he does today. Without Nadal plus the deeper field probably 0.

Djokovic about the same, if we are talking about his projected entire career (not just his career one which is only halfway through as it is).

I think I misinterpreted the question. The OP probably meant how they'd do if they alone were playing then, not if all 5 of them were playing back then.

ETA : Wait, they didn't even mention Nadal? I must be dozing off.

[NadalAgassi]

Assuming no Nadal going back with him:

Federer- 2 in the 90s (but only 3 finals), 2 in the 80s (about 3 finals again)

Djokovic- 1 or 2 in the 90s currently, but 2 or 3 by careers end. About the same in the 80s.

Murray and Ferrer- 0 of course. Dumb to even include them.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Assuming no Nadal going back with him:

Federer- 2 in the 90s (but only 3 finals), 2 in the 80s (about 3 finals again)

Djokovic- 1 or 2 in the 90s currently, but 2 or 3 by careers end. About the same in the 80s.

Murray and Ferrer- 0 of course. Dumb to even include them.

Federer is a far better Claycourter than Djokovic. No way Djokovic would win more FOs than Federer.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer is a far better Claycourter than Djokovic. No way Djokovic would win more FOs than Federer.

Djokovic has a good chance to end up with equal or more clay achievements than Federer. Do you expect Djokovic to win atleast 1 French before he retires? I sure do. Do you expect Federer to win another. I highly doubt even you can say yes to that. Federer has 6 clay Masters. Djokovic at 5 years younger has 3. Djokovic has a great shot to catch up there too. So if Djokovic is to end up with equal or more clay achievements than Federer by careers end today (we dont know for sure now, but probably atleast 55% likely to happen) why wouldnt it happen then.

As for who is the better clay courter, Djokovic has IMO been a better clay courter than Federer as far as level of play atleast ever since 2008:

2008: Federer played better at Monte Carlo, Djokovic better at Rome (way better), better at Hamburg, and better at Roland Garros. The last 2 both lost to Nadal, but at RG 2008 Djokovic won three times as many games while Federer sucked his way through an easy draw to the final before getting massacred. Hamburg is closer but Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and in form Nadal, while Federer choked in losing to a worn one.

2009: Nadal and Djokovic were both much better than Federer this year until the famous Madrid semi which seemed to kill both.

2010: Both sucked equally pretty much.

2011: Obviously overall Djokovic despite the FO semi result.

2012: Again obviously overall Djokovic.


By careers end I think you will see Djokovic rated slightly above Federer on both Australian hard courts and Clay.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Assuming no Nadal going back with him:

Federer- 2 in the 90s (but only 3 finals), 2 in the 80s (about 3 finals again)

Djokovic- 1 or 2 in the 90s currently, but 2 or 3 by careers end. About the same in the 80s.

Murray and Ferrer- 0 of course. Dumb to even include them.

Dumb to include Murray, but Ferrer could beat on a chump like Muster or Chang.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Dumb to include Murray, but Ferrer could beat on a chump like Muster.

I cant wait to see Mustard's reaction to this one.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Djokovic has a good chance to end up with equal or more clay achievements than Federer. Do you expect Djokovic to win atleast 1 French before he retires? I sure do. Do you expect Federer to win another. I highly doubt even you can say yes to that. Federer has 6 clay Masters. Djokovic at 5 years younger has 3. Djokovic has a great shot to catch up there too. So if Djokovic is to end up with equal or more clay achievements than Federer by careers end today (we dont know for sure now, but probably atleast 55% likely to happen) why wouldnt it happen then.

As for who is the better clay courter, Djokovic has IMO been a better clay courter than Federer as far as level of play atleast ever since 2008:

2008: Federer played better at Monte Carlo, Djokovic better at Rome (way better), better at Hamburg, and better at Roland Garros. The last 2 both lost to Nadal, but at RG 2008 Djokovic won three times as many games while Federer sucked his way through an easy draw to the final before getting massacred. Hamburg is closer but Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and in form Nadal, while Federer choked in losing to a worn one.

2009: Nadal and Djokovic were both much better than Federer this year until the famous Madrid semi which seemed to kill both.

2010: Both sucked equally pretty much.

2011: Obviously overall Djokovic despite the FO semi result.

2012: Again obviously overall Djokovic.

Federer made 5 FO finals and won 1. Let's see what Djokovic does. And let's not forget, Federer's prime coincided with Nadal's best on-clay years. It was only after Nadal went past his beastly best on Clay that Djokovic started to get some success.

And ever since 2008? Federer's best years were 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (even if his biggest success was in 2009). Djokovic's best were 2008, 2011 and 2012. You're basically comparing Federer's worst to Djokovic's best. And even then, Federer has been more successful. Federer made 3 finals and has had 1 win at the FO. Djokovic? 1 final.

[merlinpinpin]

None, obviously (and Nadal wouldn't have won any either), they were all much too young.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Dumb to include Murray, but Ferrer could beat on a chump like Muster or Chang.

Agree for Chang, but peak Muster could have taken on Nadal on clay, so, no.

[Russeljones]

Obviously if all 4 were to play in the 90's along each other, Djokovic, Ferrer and Murray would retire slamless.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Agree for Chang, but peak Muster could have taken on Nadal on clay, so, no.

I was only playing with Ferrer and Muster (not for Chang though). But massive LOL if you think Muster would get a set off Nadal in a FO final. Muster would only force a tie-break against 2012 Rafa on clay. It would be like Almagro - Nadal.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Edited Post :

Assuming they didn't have to face each other, and especially Nadal.

Djokovic - 1
Federer - 3
Ferrer - 0
Murray - 0

Yes that is correct. For those who don't understand, the scenario is each player on their own going back. Not all of them going back together.

[urban]

Speculative question, and so a speculative answer. In the 90s there were many more clay specialists. So the draws would be much deeper. If i look at draws of some years by Courier or Kuerten, they had to beat a seasoned clay courter in any round from the first round onwards. So while i think, that from potential Federer and Djokovic were better than some RG winners like say Chang or Moya, it would be up to see, how they would react to 7 rounds of continuous clay battles at best of five. Rios for instance was beaten at RG not so much by a single player, but by the cumulative efforts of a dangerous row of clay courters, like Costa, Corretja and so on.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Dumb to include Murray, but Ferrer could beat on a chump like Muster or Chang.

Murray lost to Nadal in the 2011 Roland Garros semi-finals. It was straight sets but Murray had 18 breakpoints. So based on the likelihood that Murray is only going to get better on clay (plus he's broken through mentally by winning the US Open, so he should be better at converting breakpoints), plus the possibility that if Nadal wasn't present in 2011 Murray may have won Roland Garros, Murray deserves a mention, as he's probably Nadal's main rival at Roland Garros for the next 5 years.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by urban

Speculative question, and so a speculative answer. In the 90s there were many more clay specialists. So the draws would be much deeper. If i look at draws of some years by Courier or Kuerten, they had to beat a seasoned clay courter in any round from the first round onwards. So while i think, that from potential Federer and Djokovic were better than some RG winners like say Chang or Moya, it would be up to see, how they would react to 7 rounds of continuous clay battles at best of five. Rios for instance was beaten at RG not so much by a single player, but by the cumulative efforts of a dangerous row of clay courters, like Costa, Corretja and so on.

However, none of those claycourt specialist were as good as Nadal and Federer. And Djokovic can make a case to be better than almost all of them. So the big 3 today, are superior to anyone or 99% of those in the 90s and 80s. And, Ferrer is extremely underrated because he's had to deal with those big 3, and he would have been able to take care of the traditional golden retrievers. People forget how defensive the clay game was in the 1990s and earlier. And the balls were far slower in the 90s. In fact, the balls in 2011 were faster than anything we've ever seen at Roland Garros.