If Nadal had won those 3 Slam finals against Djokovic, he'd be gunning for Federer!

Mike Sams · 12-28-2012, 01:43 PM

He wouldn't let anybody or anything stand in his way. He'd have tied Sampras, then looked to break Sampras' 14 Slams and then go gunning hard after Federer's slam tally.
Djokovic RUINED everything for Nadal off clay! Everybody can see it! Basically Federer should put a flag of Djokovic up on his rooftop because Djokovic is the man who ended Nadal's dream of surpassing Federer's Slam count.
You think if Nadal was at 14 Slams, he'd be taking half the year off and playing golf in Mallorca and playing poker? He'd be heavily training, going into the AO in supreme shape and ready to wage war to bag Slam #15!!!

Candide · 12-28-2012, 01:45 PM

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Steve0904 · 12-28-2012, 01:46 PM

But he didn't so this thread is useless.

//

Phoenix1983 · 12-28-2012, 01:47 PM

If it hadn't been for Djoker, Nadal would be on 14 slams, including having won five consecutive (FO 2011 - FO 2012).

Thus he would be probably ahead of Sampras and arguably at Laver's level.

Who knows whether he would catch Fed though...?

Mike Sams · 12-28-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve0904

But he didn't so this thread is useless.

//

But if he did, he wouldn't be taking half a year off and playing golf and poker. Djokovic sank Nadak's sails and stopped him from chasing history. That's my point here.

Mike Sams · 12-28-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

If it hadn't been for Djoker, Nadal would be on 14 slams, including having won five consecutive (FO 2011 - FO 2012).

Thus he would be probably ahead of Sampras and arguably at Laver's level.

Who knows whether he would catch Fed though...?

That's what I said. Nobody else on the tour is strong enough mentally to stop Nadal in a Slam final. That's why I believe Nadal has lost motivation, especially after Federer bagged Wimbledon this year. That put Nadal further back in his quest to surpass Federer.

Bobby Jr · 12-28-2012, 01:53 PM

Ever wonder why Federer has been so complimentary of Murray as of late? The more Murray achieves the less Nadal can.

After his massive 2010 it looked highly likely Nadal could catch up to Federer but since then he's only got one major closer in the last two years - two years right in the middle of his prime.

I'd say unless he wins two majors in 2013 his chances of overtaking Federer are all-but gone.

Ico · 12-28-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candide

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Beat me to it.

Retaliation · 12-28-2012, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candide

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

I agree with your analysis. If I were 8" taller, I'd be a basketball player, if I were 8" longer, I'd be a porn star. If I were a good liar, I'd be a politician. Hey, we could go on with this forever...

pringles · 12-28-2012, 01:58 PM

It's speculation. Murray was in fantastic form in this year's AO - he could've easily beaten Nadal in the final "if there was no Djokovic" to stop him in the semi-final stage. Andy would be at 50/50 to beat Nadal in the final if the same Murray who took Djokovic to the brink of defeat in the SF showed up in the next round.

Federer played excellent at the US open in 2011 up until the 3rd set against Djokovic. If there are any majors where Fed can (or could) still beat Nadal it was at the US Open. I would give Roger a pretty good chance of beating Nadal there, unlike at the FO and AO.

The only major where Nadal was a pretty safe bet was Wimbledon in 2011, he took out Murray, Federer lost early and once again with Djokovic not existing Nadal could take the title.

But once again - this is all speculation. By the same token look how many majors Nadal has taken away from Federer.

underground · 12-28-2012, 02:01 PM

If it weren't for Fed, Djoker would have had 9 slam finals in a row.

.
.
.
.

If it weren't for Djoker, Fed would have had 19 slam finals in a row.

Cup8489 · 12-28-2012, 02:02 PM

If Not for Nadal, Fed could be sitting at 23+ majors right now.

Ifs ands and buts don't count.

Mike Sams · 12-28-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cup8489

If Not for Nadal, Fed could be sitting at 23+ majors right now.

Ifs ands and buts don't count.

If not for Federer, Murray and Djokovic, Nadal would have 18 Slams right now.

Agassifan · 12-28-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cup8489

If Not for Nadal, Fed could be sitting at 23+ majors right now.

Ifs ands and buts don't count.

yeah but it doesn't change anything because he is still the GOAT

Retaliation · 12-28-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

If not for Federer, Murray and Djokovic, Nadal would have 18 Slams right now.

If not for Federer, Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal; Delpo, Ferrer, Roddick, Tsonga, etc. would have at least 2-4 more grand slams than they have right now.

monfed · 12-28-2012, 02:22 PM

Djokovic denied Ralph 3 slams but Djokovic also denied Federer 2 AOs and perhaps a USO(in 2011), so at best Djokovic saved 1 slam(if you dont wanna consider USO 2011). That's not a whole lot.

12-28-2012, 01:45 PM	#2
Candide Rookie Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Melbourne Posts: 294	If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. __________________ “There is no best. There is just the discussion of who is best. Federer, he will always be in the first part of such a discussion.” Rino Tommasi

12-28-2012, 01:47 PM	#4
Phoenix1983 Semi-Pro Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 733	If it hadn't been for Djoker, Nadal would be on 14 slams, including having won five consecutive (FO 2011 - FO 2012). Thus he would be probably ahead of Sampras and arguably at Laver's level. Who knows whether he would catch Fed though...? __________________ Oldest living male Grand Slam champs: Seixas, Patty, Falkenburg, Savitt, Sedgman, Rose, Trabert, Pietrangeli, Fraser, Rosewall.

12-28-2012, 01:53 PM	#7
Bobby Jr Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 4,543	Ever wonder why Federer has been so complimentary of Murray as of late? The more Murray achieves the less Nadal can. After his massive 2010 it looked highly likely Nadal could catch up to Federer but since then he's only got one major closer in the last two years - two years right in the middle of his prime. I'd say unless he wins two majors in 2013 his chances of overtaking Federer are all-but gone. __________________ Original Pro Staff 85, leaded to 370g, hybrid poly/syn gut set-up, 48-52-ish lbs.

12-28-2012, 01:58 PM	#10
pringles Semi-Pro Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 430	It's speculation. Murray was in fantastic form in this year's AO - he could've easily beaten Nadal in the final "if there was no Djokovic" to stop him in the semi-final stage. Andy would be at 50/50 to beat Nadal in the final if the same Murray who took Djokovic to the brink of defeat in the SF showed up in the next round. Federer played excellent at the US open in 2011 up until the 3rd set against Djokovic. If there are any majors where Fed can (or could) still beat Nadal it was at the US Open. I would give Roger a pretty good chance of beating Nadal there, unlike at the FO and AO. The only major where Nadal was a pretty safe bet was Wimbledon in 2011, he took out Murray, Federer lost early and once again with Djokovic not existing Nadal could take the title. But once again - this is all speculation. By the same token look how many majors Nadal has taken away from Federer. Last edited by pringles : 12-28-2012 at 02:01 PM.

12-28-2012, 02:01 PM	#11
underground Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 3,305	If it weren't for Fed, Djoker would have had 9 slam finals in a row. . . . . If it weren't for Djoker, Fed would have had 19 slam finals in a row. __________________ Hood_Man: "And after creating Roger Federer the Golden Eagle, God rested on the 7th day 8)"