If the big 4 were the same age

R

Ryoga2015

New User
If the big 4 were the same age what do you think would be the slam counts for them, I would say the leader would be either novak or rafa, with fed 3rd and murray 4th, maybe rafa 13, novak 13, fed 9, murray 2
 
Last edited:
D

Dave1982

Professional
Ryoga2015 said:
If the big 4 were the same age what do you think would be the slam counts for them, I would say the leader would be either novak or rafa, with fed 3rd and murray 4th, maybe novak 11, rafa 11, fed 8, murray 2
Click to expand...

Firstly the Big 4 combined have won 43 Slams....why if they were all the same age would you suggest a lower cumulative total...no logic or evidence to support this theory whatsoever.
I know this has been debated countless times but in all honesty if the Big 4 were the same age....or more specifically if Fed was 5-6 years younger (other 3 are all practically same age)...what makes you think individual Slam counts would be drastically any different??

Federer - Peaked (or won majority of his Slams) from about 22 through to 29 - still contesting Slam Finals at 34 so might have had longevity over others to pick up extra few in fact.
Nadal - Won Slams at earlier age but took time to mature away from clay. if 5 years younger Fed might have got him at 2009AO - other than that all his Slams stand.
Djokovic - Peak has come at later stage of his career, unless he's able to sustain his level to same age as Fed then no reason to suggest his count any different.
Murray - No evidence to suggest his slam count any different.
 
jm1980

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were all born less than a year apart. They are pretty much what you'd call "the same age."

Fed is older than the three of them, but so what? Nobody is forcing him to stay on the tour. Connors stuck around playing rivals seven, eight years younger than him but do I see people discrediting McEnroe and Lendl for beating up on Oldnnors? Nope.
 
R

Ryoga2015

New User
Dave1982 said:
Firstly the Big 4 combined have won 43 Slams....why if they were all the same age would you suggest a lower cumulative total...no logic or evidence to support this theory whatsoever.
I know this has been debated countless times but in all honesty if the Big 4 were the same age....or more specifically if Fed was 5-6 years younger (other 3 are all practically same age)...what makes you think individual Slam counts would be drastically any different??

Federer - Peaked (or won majority of his Slams) from about 22 through to 29 - still contesting Slam Finals at 34 so might have had longevity over others to pick up extra few in fact.
Nadal - Won Slams at earlier age but took time to mature away from clay. if 5 years younger Fed might have got him at 2009AO - other than that all his Slams stand.
Djokovic - Peak has come at later stage of his career, unless he's able to sustain his level to same age as Fed then no reason to suggest his count any different.
Murray - No evidence to suggest his slam count any different.
Click to expand...

ya big fail by me on the numbers lol

fed hasn't won anything recently and only 1 in almost 6 years so clearly fed hasnt been impressive not to mention he won most of his slams in a weak era
nadal won much earlier than fed was at one point ion a pace to easily pass fed in slam counts and obviously had much stronger competition, arguably the toughest
Djokovic again had to beak through much tougher competition than fed and more than nadal too, has won most of his slams in a tough era. Murrays wouldnt change much

so maybe its rafa 13, novak 13, fed 9, murray 2
 
R

Ryoga2015

New User
jm1980 said:
Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were all born less than a year apart. They are pretty much what you'd call "the same age."

Fed is older than the three of them, but so what? Nobody is forcing him to stay on the tour. Connors stuck around playing rivals seven, eight years younger than him but do I see people discrediting McEnroe and Lendl for beating up on Oldnnors? Nope.
Click to expand...
but fed being the same age would make a big difference, clearly rafa was amazing from a young age and novak came into his own later but fed would have to break through the same way novak had to with rafa and roger
 
D

Dave1982

Professional
Ryoga2015 said:
ya big fail by me on the numbers lol

fed hasn't won anything recently and only 1 in almost 6 years so clearly fed hasnt been impressive not to mention he won most of his slams in a weak era
nadal won much earlier than fed was at one point ion a pace to easily pass fed in slam counts and obviously had much stronger competition, arguably the toughest
Djokovic again had to beak through much tougher competition than fed and more than nadal too, has won most of his slams in a tough era. Murrays wouldnt change much

so maybe its rafa 13, novak 13, fed 9, murray 2
Click to expand...

Maths really isn't your strong suit is it....still 6 short Einstein.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Do we bring Federer forward 5 years or the other three back 5 years? Because to date their aggregate would be lower and highly respectively.

Better luck next time you idiot.
 
D

Dave1982

Professional
Nathaniel_Near said:
Do we bring Federer forward 5 years or the other three back 5 years? Because to date their aggregate would be lower and highly respectively.

Better luck next time you idiot.
Click to expand...

So we bring Fed forward 5 years so he's 39 or the other 3 back 5 years so they're 23/24...is that what I'm reading??

In short I believe we are assuming that it's Nov 2015 and same total number of Slams have been contested and they are all 33/34.

But yeah I'm the idiot....
 
GabeT

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
3393451-5096347915-this_.jpg
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Dave1982 said:
So we bring Fed forward 5 years so he's 39 or the other 3 back 5 years so they're 23/24...is that what I'm reading??

In short I believe we are assuming that it's Nov 2015 and same total number of Slams have been contested.

But yeah I'm the idiot....
Click to expand...

Please, be less hard on yourself.

Now, if we bring Federer forward to the others, then that takes out many Slams which were contested during Federer's actual playing years which he won. If we bring the other three back to Federer, then overall more Slams would have been contested by now specifically by that group of players, though they might not win many more as Federer was already greedy anyway. So, to date things would look different (in terms of the accumulated current total). If we speculate on what happens beyond what we already know then it's reasonable to assume they'd accumulate roughly the same figure.

You're welcome.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ryoga2015 said:
federer would get bullied, mentally he would suffer. 1 slam in 6 years, so age is not even n excuse.
Click to expand...
How is it not an "excuse", dolt?

If they were all the same age, it'd be exactly how it is now.
1) Roger.
2) Nadal.
3) Novak.
4) Murray.

Actually, if all were the same age the slam distribution would be more like:
1) Roger - 15 slams.
2) Nadal - 14 slams.
3) Novak - 8 slams.
4) Murray - 0 slams.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ryoga2015 said:
lol this forum is like 98 percent federer fans, an 1 percent rafa and novak fans
Click to expand...
You're in the minority of even Novak fans, kiddo.

Only a select few imbeciles actually believe the crap you write.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Poor Andy Murray. Probably true, though. Nah, I'll give him 1 Slam - sympathy Slam.
 
R

Ryoga2015

New User
Sabratha said:
How is it not an "excuse", dolt?

If they were all the same age, it'd be exactly how it is now.
1) Roger.
2) Nadal.
3) Novak.
4) Murray.

Actually, if all were the same age the slam distribution would be more like:
1) Roger - 15 slams.
2) Nadal - 14 slams.
3) Novak - 8 slams.
4) Murray - 0 slams.
Click to expand...

it would be an excuse if it was 4 maybe, clearly fed needs his weak era

1) Nadal - 15 slams..
2) Novak - 14 slams.
3) Roger - 9 slams
4) Murray - 2 slams.[/QUOTE]
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I think if all were the same age, Nadal would burst out into the lead at that start, but eventually he would be pulled in by peak Federer and peak Djokovic. We'd probably still end up with the same results. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in that order.
 
R

Ryoga2015

New User
Hitman said:
I think if all were the same age, Nadal would burst out into the lead at that start, but eventually he would be pulled in by peak Federer and peak Djokovic. We'd probably still end up with the same results. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in that order.
Click to expand...
I agree except I think rafa would still hold onto the lead, novak would be close though
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Ryoga2015 said:
I agree except I think rafa would still hold onto the lead, novak would be close though
Click to expand...

Hey all speculation. I'll go with Roger, Rafa, Novak and Andy in that order when it is all said and done.
 
U

ultradr

Legend
Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are already only 1 year difference at max.
So Federer is only variable we change.

Federer could have been denied a lot more times at slams by Nadal.

Federer can not be the top guy among these 4 if they were same age.
 
D

Dave1982

Professional
Nathaniel_Near said:
Please, be less hard on yourself.

Now, if we bring Federer forward to the others, then that takes out many Slams which were contested during Federer's actual playing years which he won. If we bring the other three back to Federer, then overall more Slams would have been contested by now specifically by that group of players, though they might not win many more as Federer was already greedy anyway. So, to date things would look different (in terms of the accumulated current total). If we speculate on what happens beyond what we already know then it's reasonable to assume they'd accumulate roughly the same figure.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

See what your angle but still don't believe it is that clear cut because there are quite a few variables to consider and argument for cumulative totals being same or different depending which way you go and whether you believe Nadal/Djokovic could have picked up a few extra titles when they were 20, 21 and 22 as each were denied by Federer at this age yet Federer didn't win a Slam or contest a Final till he was 21.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Dave1982 said:
See what your angle but still don't believe it is that clear cut because there are quite a few variables to consider and argument for cumulative totals being same or different depending which way you go and whether you believe Nadal/Djokovic could have picked up a few extra titles when they were 20, 21 and 22 as each were denied by Federer at this age yet Federer didn't win a Slam or contest a Final till he was 21.
Click to expand...

Dayum straight it isn't clear cut. Many of us are assuming Djokovic will go on to win a bunch more Slams, and if that turns out to be true and we bring him back (so that he's currently 33 or so) then we might decide to add to the cumulative total with satisfactory proof that his winning period extends beyond what can be currently observed; but for all we know, Djokovic is actually fully Finnish. Many assume Nadal is done, meaning that for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter if he wins his first RG in 2000 rather than 2005. However, it is a fact that the competitions collectively entered would either be more or less depending on if we bring the three back or Federer forward, and more often than not those scenarios would tend to lead to a total number of Slams won that doesn't have to be the same (or even that similar) to what we currently know. Now, as I said, if we don't assume the cut-off point is Nov. 2015 and just assume scenarios in which all careers have been completed, then I'd agree that there is "no logic or evidence to support this theory [of there being a lesser cumulative total of Slams won by the Big Four) whatsoever." However, if we're just going by what we know to date, then I've provided cogent arguments for why one might reasonably guess a lesser or greater total depending on the manner of transposition applied in these fantastical suppositions.
 
Bartelby

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The reality is that Federer's game now seems obsolete with the rise of the defensive game and that is why it's hard to compare these four as if they were all the same age.
 
T

timnz

Legend
jm1980 said:
Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray were all born less than a year apart. They are pretty much what you'd call "the same age."

Fed is older than the three of them, but so what? Nobody is forcing him to stay on the tour. Connors stuck around playing rivals seven, eight years younger than him but do I see people discrediting McEnroe and Lendl for beating up on Oldnnors? Nope.
Click to expand...

I guess the point is that people see Djokovic win over Federer and conclude simplistically - Djokovic is better than Federer. But age is very much a factor. Federer occassionally plays at a very high level at 34 - but what age robs you of is being able to reproduce that match after match. I think a better way of comparing great players is to only compare where their prime years intersect. So for example, Connors prime years were 1974 to 1984. Lendl's prime years were from 1981 to 1991. The intersection years were 1981 to 1984. If you look at their H2H in those years only - they are very close in numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
If the big 4 were the same zodiac sign
Replies
0
Views
231
Golden
G
F
If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age
8 9 10
Replies
467
Views
31K
Sunny014
Sunny014
titoelcolombiano
GS Titles as at Age 30
Replies
6
Views
541
-NN-
-NN-
beard
Today is Novak's 32nd birthday... Lets see where big 3 stands at that age...
2 3 4
Replies
178
Views
8K
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
RaulRamirez
Big Titles Won (Big 3 versus the field) the Last 15 years
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Lew II
Lew II
Top