Players who's careers has been stolen by Fedalovic
- Thread starter DonDiego
- Start date
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray. He would not have felt he had to kill himself to get to number one. He would have at least 10-12 slams. He would likely still be playing too.
Maybe, I know it sounds crazy... But Nishi. I mean how many QF and SF has he lost to the big 3? Has to be a lot. Imagine his confidence if he won a few. He could have had like 5-7 slams in the absence of the big 3.
Maybe, I know it sounds crazy... But Nishi. I mean how many QF and SF has he lost to the big 3? Has to be a lot. Imagine his confidence if he won a few. He could have had like 5-7 slams in the absence of the big 3.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Berdych definitely has the best looking woman of all of them. LOLBerdych had the best career
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Losses in slams during QF or later to the big 3:
Roddick: 10
Nishi: 8
Berdych: 9
Ferrer: 9
Murray: 18
Roddick: 10
Nishi: 8
Berdych: 9
Ferrer: 9
Murray: 18
DonDiego
Hall of Fame
Before even clicking, I thought of Berdych, Roddick and Murray .. in that order.
Who's Ferrer?
Ferrer could have won a few Rolland-Garros.
DonDiego
Hall of Fame
DonDiego
Hall of Fame
Right. I'm French, sorry.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Qui se soucie de savoir si c'est qui ou qui.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Wawa lost 8 times in QF's or later, but like 14 times if you count round 4.
Nup, who's.
Towny
Hall of Fame
Murray's career wasn't stolen by the Big 3. He won 3 slams, 14 masters, the WTF and 2 OSG. He was world number 1 for over 40 weeks. He's included in a 'Big 4' along with the 3 greatest players of the Open Era. Not bad going. Sure, he would have won more, but he would have never been a double digit slam winner in another era.
I would go with a slamless player. Probably Berdych or Ferrer. Could possibly make an argument for Roddick, even though he did manage a slam win.
Edit. After properly reading the OP, I would have to say Murray is easily the one who would have won the most from 2000-2019 and it wouldn't have been close. After him, I would give Hewitt and Roddick a good shot. Hewitt was blocked repeatedly by Federer in 2004-5 so he probably picks up at least a couple of slams there to add to his 2. Roddick maybe gets another 4 slams. After them, probably Berdych.
I would go with a slamless player. Probably Berdych or Ferrer. Could possibly make an argument for Roddick, even though he did manage a slam win.
Edit. After properly reading the OP, I would have to say Murray is easily the one who would have won the most from 2000-2019 and it wouldn't have been close. After him, I would give Hewitt and Roddick a good shot. Hewitt was blocked repeatedly by Federer in 2004-5 so he probably picks up at least a couple of slams there to add to his 2. Roddick maybe gets another 4 slams. After them, probably Berdych.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Before even clicking, I thought of Berdych, Roddick and Murray .. in that order.
Who's Ferrer?
Why in that order?
Bender
G.O.A.T.
When she looked down a little bit, something about her reminded me of Ferrer with longer hair and crazy eyesBerdych had the best career
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I want to know if Zoro gave you permission to post on a tennis site.
georgemccauley
Rookie
Tsonga is another one
TripleATeam
G.O.A.T.
Because Berdych's trophy cabinet doesn't have a single slam trophy in it (runner up is just first of the losers) and I think he probably could have had at least one.
Roddick seemed to be primed for greatness when Federer came along and beat him so often that Roddick started making jokes about it in his runner up speeches.
Murray for sure would have done more, but it just feels like he did enjoy reasonable success. He may be the best player of those three, but it just feels to me like the other missed out more.
I stand corrected. If yaw American, that's really embarrassing.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Surely Tsonga must play a role too. Though obviously not to the extent of Berdych and Ferrer.
Delpo also lost quite a few Big 3 matches. Even with all his injuries he´d have 3-4 slams.
Delpo also lost quite a few Big 3 matches. Even with all his injuries he´d have 3-4 slams.
Linelicker
Rookie
Wawrinka would have 0 slams, he only wins against Djokodal
My vote goes to Berdych. That talent coupled with some confidence would be hard to deal with.
Until Berdych started declining 5 years ago, he knew how to play Murray, especially on clay.
My vote goes to Berdych. That talent coupled with some confidence would be hard to deal with.
Until Berdych started declining 5 years ago, he knew how to play Murray, especially on clay.
mbm0912
Hall of Fame
verdasco's is way more attractive.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I think Davydenko would have won the AO in 2006.
clout
Hall of Fame
Poor Andy
clout
Hall of Fame
I'd go with Murray. Besides the big three, he's been the best player since 2000 and even though he's had a great career given the circumstances, he honestly would've won more in anther era.
Roddick was Federer's main punching bag for years, although he didn't really play Nadal/Djokovic in a lot of meaningful matches as by the time Rafa and Nole hit their stride, Roddick was already on his way out.
Berdych has also been stopped by the big 3/4 a ton. His 2010 run to the Wimbledon finals was the epitome of what its like to play in this era. He shockingly beats Federer in the QF, surprises everyone again by beating Djokovic in the semis and despite playing the best tennis of his life that tourney, he runs into a red hot Nadal who whipped him in straights in the finals...that's the path a mere mortal has to go through in order to win a slam these past 10-15 years
Ferrer was a punching bag to the big 3 and he honestly would've been like this in any era imo. He never had the game to be part of best of the best and although he may have won more Masters titles in other era (especially those on clay), it's not like he'd be some multi-time slam champion like Tsonga and Berdych would have been
Overall imo, I still can't view the next gen players to be better than the likes Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, Del Potro, Roddick, Soderling, Davydenko, etc. considering they all still managed to win some decently big titles and some of those above actually beat them at majors occasionally during their primes (while giving them solid challenges on other occasions), while this "next gen" can't even get the big 3 while all of them are 30+.
Roddick was Federer's main punching bag for years, although he didn't really play Nadal/Djokovic in a lot of meaningful matches as by the time Rafa and Nole hit their stride, Roddick was already on his way out.
Berdych has also been stopped by the big 3/4 a ton. His 2010 run to the Wimbledon finals was the epitome of what its like to play in this era. He shockingly beats Federer in the QF, surprises everyone again by beating Djokovic in the semis and despite playing the best tennis of his life that tourney, he runs into a red hot Nadal who whipped him in straights in the finals...that's the path a mere mortal has to go through in order to win a slam these past 10-15 years
Ferrer was a punching bag to the big 3 and he honestly would've been like this in any era imo. He never had the game to be part of best of the best and although he may have won more Masters titles in other era (especially those on clay), it's not like he'd be some multi-time slam champion like Tsonga and Berdych would have been
Overall imo, I still can't view the next gen players to be better than the likes Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, Del Potro, Roddick, Soderling, Davydenko, etc. considering they all still managed to win some decently big titles and some of those above actually beat them at majors occasionally during their primes (while giving them solid challenges on other occasions), while this "next gen" can't even get the big 3 while all of them are 30+.
Last edited:
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
And he only beats them when they´re injured or playing half-form or when they´re nervous about completing the Career Slam...Wawrinka would have 0 slams, he only wins against Djokodal
Stan the Luckanimal.
Linelicker
Rookie
Not many slams will count if the excuse is more important than the result.
Federer got nervous in Wimbledon = Luckyvic.
Medvedev got nervous in NY = Luckdal.
Stan beat Djokovic + Nadal AO14, Federer + Djokovic RG15, Del Potro + Djokovic USO16 to win his slams.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
We are talking about outsiders facing Big 3 in their early slam finales.
Apples and oranges...
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Posters whose threads have been stolen by auto-correct software.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Roddick is a tempting answer, but he would have 5 Slams (all US and W) to his current total of 1. He still had a pretty solid career.
Murray is probably the best answer, as he would have 11 GS titles instead of his current 3.
Both of these guys only lost Finals to Federer or Djokovic, Nadal wasn't that big a factor for them.
Murray is probably the best answer, as he would have 11 GS titles instead of his current 3.
Both of these guys only lost Finals to Federer or Djokovic, Nadal wasn't that big a factor for them.
clout
Hall of Fame
It’s weird that’s Nadal and Muray have never played in a GS final. However, they’ve played each other 6 times in the semis (with Nadal holding a 5-1 record) and the craziest stat of all is that one of them took part in every slam final from AO 2010-RG 2014 and yet they still somehow managed to never cross paths with one another at that stage.
Last edited:
Sabrina
Hall of Fame
Murray was basically a few points away from meeting Nadal in a GS Final (at AO 2012 and RG 2017).
Tenez101
Banned
Federer
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
Murray would be goat. He would have like 15+ slams. Although I do think the 3 goats helped make Andy better, he was forced to go that extra mile to compete with them.
BlueB
Legend
megamind
Legend
im honestly astounded thar he reached 3 gs finals
imo, so many better players have not achieved that
NatF
Bionic Poster
He's reached two. Think Del Potro gets him at least once in those if no Big 3.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
He won the first set in his only slam finale and had a set point to go up 2-0. If he had won this point, who knows how tennis may have turned out at the top. Djokovic would have lost the match probably and been 0-2 in slam finales.
Crisstti
Legend
Amazing indeed. Reminds me how Germany and Brazil never played in a World Cup game until the 2002 final, despite having won between them 7 out of the 16 tournaments played up to that point, one of them having been in the final in 12 out of the 16 previous editions (three of the exceptions being the pre second world war world cups, so one of them wasn't in the final since 1950 only on 1978), and one or both having been in the semis in 15 out the 16 tournaments.
megamind
Legend
Because they were both consistently at #2 and #4 so have to play semis
Similar threads
