Where would Federer be at today if...

[Blocker]

he, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray were all the same age and all 4 started playing the tour at the same time when Federer did?

Would he still have 17 slams to his name?
Would he still be considered a GOAT contender?

[Raz11]

He probably would have lost some of his slams during his peak years but he probably would have won more during his post prime years instead. This is assuming that their games is still successful during the faster courts, which is unlikely.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Pretty much the same thing, except that everyone would consider Murray and Djoker (not Nadal, as he would still be the clay champ) part of the so called weak era.

It's all relative, my friends.

[Raz11]

If they were all the same age,

Who was going to stop Federer from winning the CYGS in 2006. Was 2012 Djokovic, Murray or 2011 Nadal going to stop 2006 Federer?

[New Era UK]

Djokovic: ~14
Nadal: ~12
Federer: ~7
Murray: ~1

[joeri888]

Federer would have more. Feds prime is better than any of those. The surface at AO and uso would suit fed way better. And now theyd all be 31 and Since nobody new is better, fed would still rack up slams.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X


Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

[westside]

He's pushing them in his 30's, god knows how he'd do if he was the same age. I assume he'd dominate just as much. Though he wouldn't beat Rafa at the French until very late in their careers.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X


Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

Come on man. You think Fed would have won 3 slams in a calendar year 5 times + the CYGS? That just crazy.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Blocker

he, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray were all the same age and all 4 started playing the tour at the same time when Federer did?

Oh it's that thread again

Originally Posted by Blocker

Would he still have 17 slams to his name?

About the same, what slams he would have lost in his peak years he would have made up for at the age of say 29-31, I don't think any of the big 4 will play on the same level as Fed is at that age (if they would be at all still playing) and the rest of the field (especially the young guns which are laughable) is pretty lacking.

He would also have a much better chance of winning more than one FO given the chance of Novak landing in Nadal's half and beating him before the final and my personal belief that say 29 year old Fed who showed up in 2011 FO would have a much better chance of beating 29 year old Nadal than in of their other FO encounters.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Would he still be considered a GOAT contender?

Sure, it hurts, I know.

[NatF]

He'd probably do almost as well during his peak years then make up for it when the others were at 30. He'd be #1 for sure, Djokovic and Nadal could end up taking each other out at numbers #2 and #3 and on the US open and Wimbledon surface peak Federer would have a clear advantage.

[cueboyzn]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Come on man. You think Fed would have won 3 slams in a calendar year 5 times + the CYGS? That just crazy.

Thats precisely along the lines of what Fed would have done had a certain Rafael Nadal not been there to stop him in 4 FO Finals + 1 semi final. Had it not been for Nadal, Federer would have made a complete mockery of the men's tour from 2005-2011 and would likely be sitting on 4 or 5 FO Titles plus 1 more Wimbledon & Aus Open.. around 23 Slams, plus 2 or 3 CYGS

[above bored]

Originally Posted by Blocker

he, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray were all the same age and all 4 started playing the tour at the same time when Federer did?

Would he still have 17 slams to his name?
Would he still be considered a GOAT contender?

Well, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would not be as good as they currently are for starters. Their frame of reference would be completely different. Federer was responsible for raising the standard, which would not have occurred to the degree it did, as early as it did if he were born later. He set a standard that others tried extremely hard to follow, but nobody blazed a trail for him. If they all came up at the same age, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray would not be able to draw confidence from beating him to the degree they can now. Federer would also be playing them with less pressure than he did, always being the favourite. And conversely they would be under more pressure.

The landscape would be completely different. However, I believe Federer would take them by surprise and start to move away from them at around the same age he did with Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian and the rest of his generation. Federer was just a fellow contemporary when coming up with these players. No one predicted he would go on to dominate the game in the way he did. In fact, he was behind all these players early on and was considered a late bloomer when he did finally win Wimbledon at 21. So your question is sort of answered by what did happen.

To quote Agassi:

"The guy has single-handedly separated himself from a world-class field year after year after year in a way that's probably never been done."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/tennis/...st-ever-Agassi

I don’t think there would be a significant change in this pattern. A big part of Federer’s success is down to his very flexible talent and problem solving acumen, which would still be intact regardless of when he was born.

[DropShotArtist]

OP, the irony of your question is that he would counterintuitively have a chance at even more than 17. Here's why. Yes he may have lost a few of the one he has now. Eg. he may have one USO and possibly one AO. Don't see him losing any of his Wimbledon's especially given that he won even when all of the other 3 were in the draw at their best. Where he would gain more slams is at the FO, where Nadal would have surely lost more given Djokovic 2.0 and now Murray 2.0. Yes I know neither of those guys has beaten Nadal yet at FO, but it's only a matter of time. Moreover, all 3 of the other guys are much more susceptible to early round losses than prime Fed (see, Rosol, Wawrinka, etc). So Fed may well end up with 16 or 17 as he has now, or likely even more! But I doubt less than 16.

[Nitish]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer would likely have won 20 by the time he retired. People underrate Prime Hewitt, Prime Roddick, Prime Nalbandian and especially Prime Safin a lot. It was Federer's ridiculously high level of play, which has never come close to being matched, which made them all look bad. Those are some seriously talented players. Safin when on was a better player than Djokovic ever was or will be. My guess, if all 4 were aged the same :

Aged 19
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : X

Aged 20
Australian Open : X
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Djokovic

Aged 21
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 22
Australian Open : Nadal
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : X

Aged 23
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 24
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 25
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 26
Australian Open : Djokovic
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Nadal
US Open : Murray

Aged 27
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Nadal
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 28
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : Federer

Aged 29
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : X
US Open : Federer

Aged 30
Australian Open : Federer
French Open : Federer
Wimbledon : Federer
US Open : X


Come to think of it, he'd likely finish with over 20 Grand Slams. Post-prime Federer could've beaten the field in his prime, he was unfortunate he couldn't use his prime against Nadal's and Djokovic's. Honestly, he would have murdered them outside of their best surfaces more times than not.

It looks impossible but if he could beat djoko2.0 at the french imagine what he would do to a 29-30 year old rafa and djoker, he would have won most of his slams after 27

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Federer would have more. Feds prime is better than any of those. The surface at AO and uso would suit fed way better. And now theyd all be 31 and Since nobody new is better, fed would still rack up slams.

exactly. If we're going to assume they were all Fed's age then we must also assume the courts would still be faster courts. Federer would probably have even more slams than he does now.

[Dark Magician]

I generally find thread based on pure speculation...weird. But this is interesting.
I believe Fed will have the most, no doubt. In case they overlap for say 40 slams (10 years)+8 slams extra for Fed, assuming Murray and Novak will decline more than Fed. Roger can win around 5W,4US,4AO,1FO out of the 40 and 2W,2US out of next 8. So 18 slams around. Novak around 1W, 3US, 4AO, 2FO i.e. 10 slams. Rafa 7FO,1W,1AO,1US - 10 slams, so Murray ends up with 2W,1US,1-2AO i.e. 5 slams.
P.s. May be i am harsh on murray, but this is just speculation

[stringertom]

I've often wondered what impact Fed would have had if he were born just a few years earlier and played at his '04-'07 level on the faster conditions. Fed/Sampras deserved to be more than a one-and-done rivalry. Fed/Agassi before 'Dre's downturn would also have been exciting.

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by Blocker

he, Djokavic, Nadal and Murray were all the same age and all 4 started playing the tour at the same time when Federer did?

Would he still have 17 slams to his name?
Would he still be considered a GOAT contender?

He would be at 30+ Slams and they would have zilch.

[cknobman]

Fed would have more than 17 slams easy.

This years AO final had little excitement, even less shot making, and tons of "retrieving". It was so boring even the announcers commented on how little was going on.

The best and most redeeming quality of this years final vs. last years is the fact that they played at a decent pace this year and the dang thing did not drag on for 6 hours.