how many slams would fed have won if he faced 03-06 opponents his whole career?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

[kragster]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I'm not using circular logic. I'm responding to the thread. This thread is designed to compare two generations of players. If you don't think I should do that, you're on the wrong thread. Maybe I should just "go by the numbers" and say, "Federer would be winning 3 Slams a year even now because they just suck" for you to be happy.

Your opinion was that Nadal/Djoker etc are better but not much better than Hewitt/Roddick etc. Since raw accomplishments go against this assertion, the onus is on you to prove this, with a reference point that does not include Fed as it becomes circular logic as soon as Fed is involved .

[The-Champ]

One thing I know is that Federer would have won all the FOs from 2009 to present had his peak years started in 2009.

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Ummm Hewitt in 2003 dropped to #17 in the World at the end of the year. Safin missed almost the entire year of 2003. Did you actually follow tennis back then.

I was thinking of Hewitt at the year end Championships of 2002 and a Safin at the AO of 2004 which is only a few weeks out from 2003 so you got me there.

Still, both are way better than Murray/Fed/Ferrer and possibly injured Nadal of 2013.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kragster

Your opinion was that Nadal/Djoker etc are better but not much better than Hewitt/Roddick etc. Since raw accomplishments go against this assertion, the onus is on you to prove this, with a reference point that does not include Fed as it becomes circular logic as soon as Fed is involved .

Roddick is 3-7 against Nadal, with 8 of those matches coming when Roddick was past his prime. And he is 5-4 against Djokovic with ALL of those matches coming past his prime. He has shown he isn't too far below them right there, with a combined 8-11 record against them, where 17 of those matches have taken place after Roddick's prime.

Hewitt is a combined 3-13 against Nadal and Djokovic but almost all those matches have come past his prime when he was injury-ridden. He still troubles Djokovic whenever they meet, which is pretty impressive considering how far below his peak-level Hewitt is right now. He is a 2-time Grand Slam champion (and a former #1 with a substantial number of weeks at the top), more than what Murray is right now. So if Murray is considered Djokovic's main competition right now, Hewitt is for certain not too far below Djokovic's calibre either, surely?

[billnepill]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Would he still get mono in this scenario?

Milko? Oh no you didn't!

[rdis10093]

last time fed played hewitt and andy r. he lost so.... who knows?

[paulorenzo]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

I think the weak era thing is overblown and guys like roddick, Hewitt and old Agassi didn't actually "suck". they were good Players and fed beat them because he was a beast.

However let's asume that fed played his whole career against Young roddick,hewitt, coria, old Agassi and other guys of that era. fed is certainly not as good as he was in his prime but he is still a great Player. he regularly spanks top10 Players.

would 31 yo fed still win 2-3 slams a year against those guys? or would he also struggle?

what number of slams would he have won?

03 agassi would give federer trouble right now.

[90's Clay]

AYE.. I would hate to think. Probably every non clay slam for 9-10 years straight (and counting). .Unless he faced God-mode Safin of course. But God-Mode Safin showed up maybe twice or three times in his entire career (USO 2000, AO 2005)

The top field from 03-06 SUCKED royally. (Of course 2007 wasn't much better but Nadal had finally begun to emerge by then)


Andre was still pretty serviceable, but old by that point.. hardly in his prime anymore. His prime more or less ended in 2000 or 2001. He was still capable of beating Roger even at an old age, but with a bad back and slowing movement, he couldn't hang through an entire match with Rog (2003-2005) As Charles Barkley says, "Father time is undefeated"

[paulorenzo]

to be clear, federer at age 31 would have more trouble with 03 agassi than federer at 22 did.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by wangs78

Fed at 31 can beat any of those guys from 03-06, except perhaps an in-form Safin (almost never happens). He's still great at dealing with big servers so I don't think a young Roddick will do much better. The big reason that people never mention that Murray and Djokovic and Nadal are so good is that they played against Federer when they still had several years to improve, so when Fed set the bar so high they were able to hit that bar. Players who are Fed's age, by the time they played a prime Fed they had already maxed out their abilities and there was no room left to improve in any big sort of way.

Federer owned the H2H with Safin 10-2. I know Safin was plagued by injuries but you can't just assume Safin would be in form and Fed would have trouble with him. Federer would still win 85% of their matches. And Safin was only 1-1/2 years older than Federer.

[Emet74]

Originally Posted by rdis10093

last time fed played hewitt and andy r. he lost so.... who knows?

This.

Post-prime Fed lost to post-prime Hewitt and Roddick in Halle and Miami - prime Hewitt and Roddick would probably give him plenty of trouble.

And prime Agassi would as well.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

in 2003 Safin and Hewitt were definitely better than Murray/Fed of 2012 in my opinion.

Now I've read some dumb posts, this one is not worse than my sig, but it is the second dumbest thing I've read on here.

In 2003 Safin did not play RG, WIM, USO or YEC. Hewitt lost in the first round of WIM as the #1 seed and dropped from #1 to #17. How in anyone's right mind were they better than Murray and Fed last year?

[RF20Lennon]

I think what people need to understand that it was nadal's forehand that made Fed's backhand better. So when he is able to handle his backhand with guys like Murray and Nole its because Nadal went after it time and time again and fed had to improve it. Get those guys out of the picture and Fed although has a great backhand is not as strong as it is today so those guys would be able to exploit it. The two things better today in feds game is the serve and the backhand. But he's lost his explosiveness, court coverage, recovery and the once legendary forehand (especially the one on the run). I honestly think if he had today's backhand back in 2006 or 2007 he wouldve beaten Rafa in those FO finals but as Fed's backhand kept getting better so did Rafa as a whole. But to answer OP's question Id say about 23-24

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Roddick is 3-7 against Nadal, with 8 of those matches coming when Roddick was past his prime. And he is 5-4 against Djokovic with ALL of those matches coming past his prime. He has shown he isn't too far below them right there, with a combined 8-11 record against them, where 17 of those matches have taken place after Roddick's prime.

Hewitt is a combined 3-13 against Nadal and Djokovic but almost all those matches have come past his prime when he was injury-ridden. He still troubles Djokovic whenever they meet, which is pretty impressive considering how far below his peak-level Hewitt is right now. He is a 2-time Grand Slam champion (and a former #1 with a substantial number of weeks at the top), more than what Murray is right now. So if Murray is considered Djokovic's main competition right now, Hewitt is for certain not too far below Djokovic's calibre either, surely?

I like how you say Hewitt and Roddick were past their prime in most of the matches.

First of all clarify what you think were their prime years.

Secondly, Rafa lost to Roddick in 2004 USO. He was 17 against the defending champ, so if Roddick's post prime losses (assuming you mean 2010 onwards) don't count, then neither does Nadal pre-prime loss. In fact (even though it was on clay) 17 year old beat Roddick in Davis Cup later that year. In their only 2007 encounter on HC, Rafa also won that. In their only grass encounter, Rafa won that also.

As for Hewitt, all 3 of his wins came against pre-prime Nadal at the Australian Open x2 and 1 in Toronto 04. The first one was 2 tight sets then Hewitt ran away with it (interestingly if Rafa had won that match he would've met Fed in the 2004 AO). The second one was Toronto which went to 3 sets. The third one was 2005 AO and Hewitt had a tough 5 set battle against him. This is PRIME Hewitt struggling against kid Rafa before he won his first major. THeir grass encounter doesn't matter since Rafa had to retire the match at 1 set all.

If prime Hewitt and Roddick were playing in this era they wouldn't even come close to winning a major. They'd at best make a few semi's here and there and possibly fluke their way to a final once or twice. Look how weak Hewitt's 02 WIM draw was, do you really think he'd win it if post-prime Fed or prime Rafa, Joker or Murray entered? Not a chance.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The_Order

I like how you say Hewitt and Roddick were past their prime in most of the matches.

First of all clarify what you think were their prime years.

Secondly, Rafa lost to Roddick in 2004 USO. He was 17 against the defending champ, so if Roddick's post prime losses (assuming you mean 2010 onwards) don't count, then neither does Nadal pre-prime loss. In fact (even though it was on clay) 17 year old beat Roddick in Davis Cup later that year. In their only 2007 encounter on HC, Rafa also won that. In their only grass encounter, Rafa won that also.

As for Hewitt, all 3 of his wins came against pre-prime Nadal at the Australian Open x2 and 1 in Toronto 04. The first one was 2 tight sets then Hewitt ran away with it (interestingly if Rafa had won that match he would've met Fed in the 2004 AO). The second one was Toronto which went to 3 sets. The third one was 2005 AO and Hewitt had a tough 5 set battle against him. This is PRIME Hewitt struggling against kid Rafa before he won his first major. THeir grass encounter doesn't matter since Rafa had to retire the match at 1 set all.

If prime Hewitt and Roddick were playing in this era they wouldn't even come close to winning a major. They'd at best make a few semi's here and there and possibly fluke their way to a final once or twice. Look how weak Hewitt's 02 WIM draw was, do you really think he'd win it if post-prime Fed or prime Rafa, Joker or Murray entered? Not a chance.

Blah blah blah. All speculation. I could just as easily claim Roddick and Hewitt would be 39-time Slam Champions in this era. Try again.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Blah blah blah. All speculation. I could just as easily claim Roddick and Hewitt would be 39-time Slam Champions in this era. Try again.

Just like your sig yeah?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

I like how you say Hewitt and Roddick were past their prime in most of the matches.

First of all clarify what you think were their prime years.

Secondly, Rafa lost to Roddick in 2004 USO. He was 17 against the defending champ, so if Roddick's post prime losses (assuming you mean 2010 onwards) don't count, then neither does Nadal pre-prime loss. In fact (even though it was on clay) 17 year old beat Roddick in Davis Cup later that year. In their only 2007 encounter on HC, Rafa also won that. In their only grass encounter, Rafa won that also.

As for Hewitt, all 3 of his wins came against pre-prime Nadal at the Australian Open x2 and 1 in Toronto 04. The first one was 2 tight sets then Hewitt ran away with it (interestingly if Rafa had won that match he would've met Fed in the 2004 AO). The second one was Toronto which went to 3 sets. The third one was 2005 AO and Hewitt had a tough 5 set battle against him. This is PRIME Hewitt struggling against kid Rafa before he won his first major. THeir grass encounter doesn't matter since Rafa had to retire the match at 1 set all.

If prime Hewitt and Roddick were playing in this era they wouldn't even come close to winning a major. They'd at best make a few semi's here and there and possibly fluke their way to a final once or twice. Look how weak Hewitt's 02 WIM draw was, do you really think he'd win it if post-prime Fed or prime Rafa, Joker or Murray entered? Not a chance.

bah, what a pathetic joke ...

roddick did actually beat murray in wimbledon 2009

2002 hewitt would have a darn good chance of beating djoker/murray on grass .... rafa is better on grass, but it would be a close contest ...hewitt of 2002 would also definitely have beaten fed of wimbledon 2010 ....

and yeah, roddick/hewitt would also have a darn good chance of taking out nadal/djoker/murray @ the USO ... they'd could also take out djok of AO 2009/10, murray of AO 09/11 etc etc ...(actually roddick did take out djoker @ AO 2009 )

and regarding AO 05, rafa actually played a good match there, it wasn't that he was sub-par, yet took hewitt to 5 sets ....

when you are talking about some semis here and there and an occasional final, you should be referring to streaky, but occasionally dangerous players like berdych, soderling etc ... not much better players like hewitt, roddick etc ...

[namelessone]

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 )

[Breaker]

Probably around the same. Prime Roddick could overpower him like a few of the other big hitters do these days (just look at Wimbledon 2009..just lol at those thinking he'd be a walkover for post-prime Fed)

Hewitt even in '04-'05 pushed Fred to losing sets in a lot of matches and gives him tough matches when they play now and that's after 5 surgeries..even a win at Halle when Federer hadn't lost there in over 6 years, a prime Hewitt would definitely have his chances at Wimbledon and US Open.

Safin again could overpower him, wouldn't even necessarily need to be 'god mode' to beat current Fed, though would still lose more than he won due to inconsistency.

Agassi at any age is tough, pushed him a lot in his prime and could probably outlast current Fed..even at 35 he had Roger on a string sideline to sideline in that US Open final for 3 sets, haven't seen anyone else do something like that since.

Nalbandian could cause an upset anywhere, was a very consistently good player from '03 to around the '06 French Open where he probably beats Fed if not for the abdominal strain.

Then there were the actual clay courters as well -- Ferrero/Guga/Coria/Gaudio/Moya as well as Nadal..would still have trouble winning even 1 RG I think.

Originally Posted by namelessone

Probably 20 something slams with at least one calendar slam.

)

Explain to me what year Federer would be able to beat 2006 Nadal at RG, or even Guga for that matter to get the calender slam. He might even have won less as prime Roddick might not lose that Wimbledon 2009 match and Fed was there for the taking in 2008.