Where would Federer be at today if...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fed at 31 still a threat and is #2 in the world against Nole/Murray/Nadal who are in their prime. If all 4 players are at the exact same age, Fed at 31 would have even greater chance or racking up slams. There's no way Nole/Murray/Nadal at 31 can compete with Federer, their game is too taxing to have that longevity. Also, Nadal is an early bloomer, which would give Fed better shot at winning RG by the time nadal's body break down. And then you have Nole could possibly take out nadal at RG due to the nightmare matchup, and Fed's chance to win RG is better when Nadal is knock out.

It's tricky and alot of variables come into play, but one can argue Fed would still have won 17 if not more.

[mightyrick]

Then again, if Brian Baker would have been born with the body of Federer or Djokovic -- he'd probably be one of the best tennis players ever. Certainly better than Djokovic and Nadal -- possibly as talented as Federer.

[Big_Dangerous]

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?

This is a tough one, but I'm going to say that in this case, it really only helps Nadal. Because if you remember, a very young Rafa took a prime Fed to 5 sets in 3 straight Wimbly finals, before finally winning on the third try. If they were both in their prime, I feel like Rafa would have won at least 2/3 of those. The only one I feel like would have not won a slam, is Murray.

[Big_Dangerous]

Originally Posted by TMF

Fed at 31 still a threat and is #2 in the world against Nole/Murray/Nadal who are in their prime. If all 4 players are at the exact same age, Fed at 31 would have even greater chance or racking up slams. There's no way Nole/Murray/Nadal at 31 can compete with Federer, their game is too taxing to have that longevity. Also, Nadal is an early bloomer, which would give Fed better shot at winning RG by the time nadal's body break down. And then you have Nole could possibly take out nadal at RG due to the nightmare matchup, and Fed's chance to win RG is better when Nadal is knock out.

It's tricky and alot of variables come into play, but one can argue Fed would still have won 17 if not more.

No way man. The Rafa of 2010-2012 is a much better player than the Rafa of 2005-2006 when he won his first RG's. I still think Rafa would have dominated RG, and perhaps Fed wouldn't even have won his lone FO title in 2009. I mean there's just no way you're going to say it would favor Fed to play a prime Rafa when prime Fed couldn't even beat a 19-22 year old Nadal @ the French...

I mean how the hell is prime Fed suppossed to beat prime Nadal on clay, when prime Fed couldn't even beat young Nadal on clay?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Big_Dangerous

No way man. The Rafa of 2010-2012 is a much better player than the Rafa of 2005-2006 when he won his first RG's. I still think Rafa would have dominated RG, and perhaps Fed wouldn't even have won his lone FO title in 2009. I mean there's just no way you're going to say it would favor Fed to play a prime Rafa when prime Fed couldn't even beat a 19-22 year old Nadal @ the French...

I mean how the hell is prime Fed suppossed to beat prime Nadal on clay, when prime Fed couldn't even beat young Nadal on clay?

Nadal is an early bloomer while Fed is a late bloomer. While at 31 Fed is still competitive, but at 5 years younger, nadal right now is falling apart is NOT playing. To sum that up, Nadal would have accomplished more in the early years, but Fed would picked up in the latter years and surpassed him. What Nadal won his first 3 or 4 RG would be during the pre-prime Fed, so those slams alone isn't effecting Fed's long years of dominating the field. Nadal fans even conceded Nadal was a better cc when he was young. So ther's window of oppotunities for Fed to rule the FO when Nadal start deteriorating. No way nadal at 30/31 is going to play at the same level.

[Mick3391]

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?

These hypotheticals are always difficult. We could say "How great would Fed be considered if they played in the 90's faster courts"? Or "What would we think of Nadal if Fed and Djoke weren't around?

It's fun talk, but things are the way they are.

Realistically, Fed barely leads Nadal outside of clay, so what if Fed refused to play clay? He'd have a winning record.

Tough to know, it spikes many emotions with many people.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

These hypotheticals are always difficult. We could say "How great would Fed be considered if they played in the 90's faster courts"? Or "What would we think of Nadal if Fed and Djoke weren't around?

It's fun talk, but things are the way they are.

Realistically, Fed barely leads Nadal outside of clay, so what if Fed refused to play clay? He'd have a winning record.

Tough to know, it spikes many emotions with many people.

QFT. Just leave as it is since hypotheticals are pointless. There's no need to create thead to minimize Federer's achievements.

[brianb76]

He probaly would have won less when he was younger but they would be retired by now and he would be winning 3 or so a year till 2016.

[Towser83]

He would have lost some in his prime years but over the last 3-4 years he would have won more than he has, playing against older Djokovic and Nadal he would be lasting better than them

[flyinghippos101]

Dude is 31 and is still competing and and still regularly handing out beat downs to prime Murray and Novak. Fed would probably still been the best of the group

[Hodgey20]

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.

This is just crazy. Fed just becomes unstoppable as the 4 would get older. This is tough to tell because we have not seen murray djoko or nadal play into their late 20s yet.

[veroniquem]

edit. Sorry, wrong thread