Federer's career without Nadal, and other fun with numbers

[Nicholas Warino]

If you were to remove a player’s biggest rival(s), what would their career totals look like? For simplicity’s sake, I will be completely optimistic and assume that they would have won without the presence of their rival (Not counting Sampras’ loss to Agassi in the 1992 FO, because it’s extremely unlikely Sampras wins that without Agassi. Yes, this is entirely subjective, but this post is more for fun/illustrative purposes).

Here’s a selective list:

Federer (without Nadal)
23 Grand slams total (out of 27 events)
7 at Wimbledon, (consecutive)
6 at FO, (5 consecutive)
5 at USO, consecutive
5 at AO
11 straight grand slam titles (FO 2005 to AO 2008).
6 straight grand slam titles (FO 2008 to USO 2009)

Sampras (without Agassi)
16 Grand slams
7 at Wimbledon
5 at USO
4 at AO

McEnroe (without Lendl)
14 Grand Slam Titles
7 USO
3 Wimbledon
3 FO
1 AO

Borg (without McEnroe)
14 Grand Slams
6 French Open
6 Wimbledon
2 USO

Borg (without Connors)
14 Grand Slams
6 French Open
5 Wimbledon
3 USO

Agassi (without Sampras)
14 Grand Slams
6 USO
4 AO
3 Wimbledon
1 French Open

Connors (without McEnroe)
14 Grand Slams
8 USO
4 Wimbledon
1 AO
1FO

Connors (without Borg)
13 Grand Slams
6 USO
6 Wimbledon
1 AO

Nadal (without Federer)
12 Grand Slams
6 at FO
4 at Wimbledon
1 at AO
1 at USO

McEnroe (without Connors)
10 Grand Slam Titles
5 USO
5 Wimbledon

McEnroe (without Borg)
8 Grand Slam Titles
4 USO
4 Wimbledon




Federer (without Nadal AND Djokovic)
26 Grand slams total (out of 30 events)
7 at AO (5 consecutive)
7 at Wimbledon (consecutive)
6 at FO (5 consecutive)
6 at USO (consecutive)

18 straight grand slam titles (FO 2005 to USO 2009)

Connors (without McEnroe AND Borg)
19 Grand Slams
9 USO
8 Wimbledon
1 AO
1 FO

McEnroe (without Lendl AND Borg)
17 Grand Slam Titles
8 USO
5 Wimbledon
3 FO
1 AO

Borg (without McEnroe AND Connors)
17 Grand Slams
6 French Open
6 Wimbledon
5 USO

I’m not doing Lendl (8 total GS titles), because it’s hard to pick his biggest rival. Consider:

He’s lost GS tournies to:

Becker (five times)
Wilander (four times)
Connors (three times)
McEnroe (three times)

And for fun, Andy Roddick without Federer:

9 GS
4 Wimbledon (3 in a row from 2003-2005)
3 USO
2 AO

To recap,

Federer is clearly hurt the worst by a single rival—Nadal, obviously. Federer loses potentially 7 grand slam titles because Nadal decided to play tennis, including an amazing 5 at the French Open alone. With Nadal, Federer is probably the best player ever; without Nadal, Federer makes a mockery of the sport and dominates it like no athlete since Babe Ruth in baseball. Without Nadal, he would have a career grand slam, five times over and an incredible 11 straight GS titles streak. He would also finish tied for first at Wimbledon, the French Open, the US Open, and be first at the AO in total titles

McEnroe is equally killed by Lendl. McEnroe (7 actual GS wins), lost to Lendl 3 times at the USO, 3 times at the FO, and once at the AO. Although, this is much more optimistic for McEnroe, because 4 of these loses were in quarters, where 6 of Federer’s losses to Nadal were in the finals and one in the semi’s. Without Lendl, McEnroe would have a decent claim as the greatest ever over Federer due to his doubles superiority and the irrelevancy of the AO during much of McEnroe’s prime.

Connors is almost equally hurt by McEnroe (6 lost) and Borg (5). Without both, Connors wins an incredible 19 grand slams, including a remarkable 9 USO titles and 8 Wimbledon titles (both records, even on this list) and a career slam.

Agassi, without Sampras, would probably be considered one of the 3 greatest players ever.

Sampras and Nadal are hurt little by a single rival, each only netting an additional 2 titles.

Without Federer, Andy Roddick might be considered a second tier all-time great player, instead he’s considered a one-slam wonder. I should take back my comment about Federer being hurt the most by the existence of one other player. Clearly Roddick and his 2-20 record and 0-8 record in grand slams against Federer is hurt more than any other player on this list.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Basically Nadal is good for tennis no? I would have been bored out of my mind by ANYONE winning 23 slams.

 

[Sharpshooter]

WOW that's amazing, now back to reality, I can understand why all the ****s here hate Nadal's guts

 

[Sharpshooter]

Basically Nadal is good for tennis no? I would have been bored out of my mind by ANYONE winning 23 slams.

Not me I'd love to see Rafa win another 13 slams, the ****s would lose their minds :mrgreen:

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Could we stop calling each other names? And who here hates Nadals guts? Not me for one.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Could we stop calling each other names? And who here hates Nadals guts? Not me for one.

Tennis pro, 8PAQ, pwned amongst others.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Could we stop calling each other names? And who here hates Nadals guts? Not me for one.

There's a lot of fair Federer fans on here, im glad for that. But there really does seem to be a good bit of them that CANNOT STAND Nadal, like pure hatrid. I really don't get it. There's crazy Rafa fans too but they are more pro Rafa than anti-Fed. I don't get how people can hate a player so much.

 

[jackson vile]

This demon straights how much Nadal has single handedly taken away from Roger.

 

[aprilfool]

There's a lot of fair Federer fans on here, im glad for that. But there really does seem to be a good bit of them that CANNOT STAND Nadal, like pure hatrid. I really don't get it. There's crazy Rafa fans too but they are more pro Rafa than anti-Fed. I don't get how people can hate a player so much.

Well, history can s shine a light on the truth. The year that Federer had mono this forum was overrun by hostile Nadal fans who attacked Federer and his wife relentlessly. The effort actually seemed rather concerted, and the attacks were not limited to his playing style. Some of us who were here then will not forget that.

 

[Pinkskunk]

it would be better for the tennis world if Fed never exist, and so threads like this would never eixst.

So freaking boring with all these ******* or ********* threads keep on beating itself over and over and over again and never seem to die off. I am not sure if people love tennis for tennis, or love tennis because of Fed or Nadal? your vision is too small and therefore so limited you missed the whole big picture.

Go and play more tennis, watch less TV and you won't have much time to count the trophies he colllected or time to think of all the scenarios of what IFs.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

what about Federer's career without Nadal's injuries?

10 slams?

 

[tennis_pro]

what about Federer's career without Nadal's injuries?

10 slams?

what about Nadal without Federer's mono and his back problems in 08/09? Not a single Slam outside the FO?

 

[jkang909]

then tennis would be boring to watch

 

[Sentinel]

How are you sure Roddick would have beaten the other finalist had Federer not been there. It's not like Roddick was #1 or even #2.

 

[fed_rulz]

what about Federer's career without Nadal's injuries?

10 slams?

What about Sampras' slams without Agassi's meth? 5?

 

[RCizzle65]

One thing people forget about is passion and motivation, who's to say any of these players wouldn't get bored, or have the motivation to continue improving or getting better? Sampras said he improved his second serve because of Agassi, and Federer's backhand has continued to improve.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

what about Nadal without Federer's mono and his back problems in 08/09? Not a single Slam outside the FO?

I think Federer would have retired by now on about 9-10 slams and about 10+ slam final losses to Nadal if Nadals injuries had not saved his career.

 

[RCizzle65]

Also, on Roddick, I doubt he would be making such a great push at Wimbledon in 09 if he already had one.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

What about Sampras' slams without Agassi's meth? 5?

about 5 more(19-20),he'd be better if he had someone better to push him more.

 

[li0scc0]

There's a lot of fair Federer fans on here, im glad for that. But there really does seem to be a good bit of them that CANNOT STAND Nadal, like pure hatrid. I really don't get it. There's crazy Rafa fans too but they are more pro Rafa than anti-Fed. I don't get how people can hate a player so much.

Actually, as one who likes both, I think the anti-Fed Nadal fans far far far outnumber the anti-Nadal Fed fans both in number and in level of vitriol.

The funny thing I think is how most Sampras fans end up Nadal fans. Sampras fans feel threatened at Federer overtaking their hero's legacy, and embrace Nadal. Two completely opposite players in Sampras and Nadal, the contrast could not be greater.

 

[fed_rulz]

about 5 more(19-20),he'd be better if he had someone better to push him more.

so the Pete's "nearest rival" was not really a rival? So much for Sampras owning his "nearest rival"... LOL, thanks for playing. Confirms that Sampras played in a weaker era.

 

[tennis_pro]

I think Federer would have retired by now on about 9-10 slams and about 10+ slam final losses to Nadal if Nadals injuries had not saved his career.

If Nadal didn't have to outgrind his opponent in 30+ shot rallies, he wouldn't be injured so often. Either way he doesn't win more Slams than Federer. Thx for playing.

 

[fed_rulz]

Actually, as one who likes both, I think the anti-Fed Nadal fans far far far outnumber the anti-Nadal Fed fans both in number and in level of vitriol.

The funny thing I think is how most Sampras fans end up Nadal fans. Sampras fans feel threatened at Federer overtaking their hero's legacy, and embrace Nadal. Two completely opposite players in Sampras and Nadal, the contrast could not be greater.

Federer already has eclipsed/equalled most of Sampras' records, and they are bitter about it. Earlier they were hoping Nadal would stop Federer from breaking Pete's records (namely slam records), but he couldn't. Now, they want revenge: they want Nadal to do the same to Federer that Federer did to Sampras. Plus, at the very least they want to keep it close b/n Sampras and Federer (only in their minds is it "close").

 

[tennis_pro]

Haha, nice try...it's a shame that as a *******, you're incapable of seeing the plain hard facts: Nadal is Federer's kryptonite, and Federer will never be able to surpass the Spaniard. Sorry, but it's the truth.

Lolwut? You mean Davis Cup or Masters Shields?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Tennis pro, 8PAQ, pwned amongst others.

There's a lot of fair Federer fans on here, im glad for that. But there really does seem to be a good bit of them that CANNOT STAND Nadal, like pure hatrid. I really don't get it. There's crazy Rafa fans too but they are more pro Rafa than anti-Fed. I don't get how people can hate a player so much.

It goes both ways and its a few people, so stop the negative generalizing and namecalling please.

 

[TheTruth]

Actually, as one who likes both, I think the anti-Fed Nadal fans far far far outnumber the anti-Nadal Fed fans both in number and in level of vitriol.

The funny thing I think is how most Sampras fans end up Nadal fans. Sampras fans feel threatened at Federer overtaking their hero's legacy, and embrace Nadal. Two completely opposite players in Sampras and Nadal, the contrast could not be greater.

I'm a former Sampras fan. I thought he was the best player I had ever seen. But, imo, you have to move with the times. Fed has eclipsed some of Pete's records, why waste time being angry about that?

That being said, I still see Sampras as greater than Fed, not because of records, streaks, or aesthetics, but by the context in which he played. What made Pete so great was his mental strength. Pete did what he did while they were constantly maligning him. I found it remarkable, that while they constantly lauded Andre, Pete continued his own excellence. How many more titles could Pete have won if he hadn't had that negative emotional battle with the press and pundits?

It's interesting the correlation between Sampras and Nadal,while they appear to be completely different, they have one thing in common, which is the thread that probably cements it.

Both were not the "favorite son." Regardless of their talent, the media applied the "dull" moniker to them. Ridiculous really, because both filled the stands and received accolades outside of the damage the media tried to inflict.

For me, that is the sympatico between Sampras and Nadal fans. It has nothing to do with hatred over records, or other players. Records will always be broken, but true fans enjoy the players over their career achievements.

Sampras always gave his opponents credit and did not act puffed up over his achievements. In this regard, Nadal and Sampras share a similar persona.

That's why this Nadal fan likes both of them. It has nothing to do with Roger. Good for Roger and his achievements, he just doesn't appeal to me on any level.

The notion of liking one player means you have to hate another player stems from a person's inner pysche. It doesn't have to be that way. Arguing with fans of other players because they like their particular player is insane, those who practice it, imo, are mentally unstable.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

what about Federer's career without Nadal's injuries?

10 slams?

What about Nadals career without juicing up before the big tournaments? Suddenly serving 135 mp/h, and 2 weeks later serving 110 mp/h ??

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Well, history can s shine a light on the truth. The year that Federer had mono this forum was overrun by hostile Nadal fans who attacked Federer and his wife relentlessly. The effort actually seemed rather concerted, and the attacks were not limited to his playing style. Some of us who were here then will not forget that.

Thats absolutely right, but MichaelNadal will never confess that, he tries to come out as a fair goody-2-shoes kind of guy (??) who closes his eyes for the truth about some (many) Nadal-fans

 

[Messarger]

What about Nadals career without juicing up before the big tournaments? Suddenly serving 135 mp/h, and 2 weeks later serving 110 mp/h ??

If you do not have any concrete evidence, stop sprouting nonsense.

 

[jackson vile]

One thing people forget about is passion and motivation, who's to say any of these players wouldn't get bored, or have the motivation to continue improving or getting better? Sampras said he improved his second serve because of Agassi, and Federer's backhand has continued to improve.

That's a really good point, perhaps without Nadal Federer would have had less?

 

[TMF]

If you do not have any concrete evidence, stop sprouting nonsense.

He was just getting back at the ******* who started spewing nonsense(eg theNatural).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Thats absolutely right, but MichaelNadal will never confess that, he tries to come out as a fair goody-2-shoes kind of guy (??) who closes his eyes for the truth about some (many) Nadal-fans

You're so lost it's ridiculous. I AM fair, sorry that I don't give you any ammo

 

[jackson vile]

If you were to remove a player’s biggest rival(s), what would their career totals look like? For simplicity’s sake, I will be completely optimistic and assume that they would have won without the presence of their rival (Not counting Sampras’ loss to Agassi in the 1992 FO, because it’s extremely unlikely Sampras wins that without Agassi. Yes, this is entirely subjective, but this post is more for fun/illustrative purposes).

Here’s a selective list:

Federer (without Nadal)
23 Grand slams total (out of 27 events)
7 at Wimbledon, (consecutive)
6 at FO, (5 consecutive)
5 at USO, consecutive
5 at AO
11 straight grand slam titles (FO 2005 to AO 2008).
6 straight grand slam titles (FO 2008 to USO 2009)

Sampras (without Agassi)
16 Grand slams
7 at Wimbledon
5 at USO
4 at AO

McEnroe (without Lendl)
14 Grand Slam Titles
7 USO
3 Wimbledon
3 FO
1 AO

Borg (without McEnroe)
14 Grand Slams
6 French Open
6 Wimbledon
2 USO

Borg (without Connors)
14 Grand Slams
6 French Open
5 Wimbledon
3 USO

Agassi (without Sampras)
14 Grand Slams
6 USO
4 AO
3 Wimbledon
1 French Open

Connors (without McEnroe)
14 Grand Slams
8 USO
4 Wimbledon
1 AO
1FO

Connors (without Borg)
13 Grand Slams
6 USO
6 Wimbledon
1 AO

Nadal (without Federer)
12 Grand Slams
6 at FO
4 at Wimbledon
1 at AO
1 at USO

McEnroe (without Connors)
10 Grand Slam Titles
5 USO
5 Wimbledon

McEnroe (without Borg)
8 Grand Slam Titles
4 USO
4 Wimbledon




Federer (without Nadal AND Djokovic)
26 Grand slams total (out of 30 events)
7 at AO (5 consecutive)
7 at Wimbledon (consecutive)
6 at FO (5 consecutive)
6 at USO (consecutive)

18 straight grand slam titles (FO 2005 to USO 2009)

Connors (without McEnroe AND Borg)
19 Grand Slams
9 USO
8 Wimbledon
1 AO
1 FO

McEnroe (without Lendl AND Borg)
17 Grand Slam Titles
8 USO
5 Wimbledon
3 FO
1 AO

Borg (without McEnroe AND Connors)
17 Grand Slams
6 French Open
6 Wimbledon
5 USO

I’m not doing Lendl (8 total GS titles), because it’s hard to pick his biggest rival. Consider:

He’s lost GS tournies to:

Becker (five times)
Wilander (four times)
Connors (three times)
McEnroe (three times)

And for fun, Andy Roddick without Federer:

9 GS
4 Wimbledon (3 in a row from 2003-2005)
3 USO
2 AO

To recap,

Federer is clearly hurt the worst by a single rival—Nadal, obviously. Federer loses potentially 7 grand slam titles because Nadal decided to play tennis, including an amazing 5 at the French Open alone. With Nadal, Federer is probably the best player ever; without Nadal, Federer makes a mockery of the sport and dominates it like no athlete since Babe Ruth in baseball. Without Nadal, he would have a career grand slam, five times over and an incredible 11 straight GS titles streak. He would also finish tied for first at Wimbledon, the French Open, the US Open, and be first at the AO in total titles

McEnroe is equally killed by Lendl. McEnroe (7 actual GS wins), lost to Lendl 3 times at the USO, 3 times at the FO, and once at the AO. Although, this is much more optimistic for McEnroe, because 4 of these loses were in quarters, where 6 of Federer’s losses to Nadal were in the finals and one in the semi’s. Without Lendl, McEnroe would have a decent claim as the greatest ever over Federer due to his doubles superiority and the irrelevancy of the AO during much of McEnroe’s prime.

Connors is almost equally hurt by McEnroe (6 lost) and Borg (5). Without both, Connors wins an incredible 19 grand slams, including a remarkable 9 USO titles and 8 Wimbledon titles (both records, even on this list) and a career slam.

Agassi, without Sampras, would probably be considered one of the 3 greatest players ever.

Sampras and Nadal are hurt little by a single rival, each only netting an additional 2 titles.

Without Federer, Andy Roddick might be considered a second tier all-time great player, instead he’s considered a one-slam wonder. I should take back my comment about Federer being hurt the most by the existence of one other player. Clearly Roddick and his 2-20 record and 0-8 record in grand slams against Federer is hurt more than any other player on this list.

Very interesting, nothing worse than thinking what could have been. But Roger still did a good job.

 

[Agassifan]

This demon straights how much Nadal has single handedly taken away from Roger.

And yet he is the GOAT

 

[jackson vile]

And yet he is the GOAT

You think Nadal is the GOAT An GOAT debate to infinitum...

 

[jackson vile]

If you were to remove a player’s biggest rival(s), what would their career totals look like? For simplicity’s sake, I will be completely optimistic and assume that they would have won without the presence of their rival (Not counting Sampras’ loss to Agassi in the 1992 FO, because it’s extremely unlikely Sampras wins that without Agassi. Yes, this is entirely subjective, but this post is more for fun/illustrative purposes).

Here’s a selective list:

Federer (without Nadal)
23 Grand slams total (out of 27 events)
7 at Wimbledon, (consecutive)
6 at FO, (5 consecutive)
5 at USO, consecutive
5 at AO
11 straight grand slam titles (FO 2005 to AO 2008).
6 straight grand slam titles (FO 2008 to USO 2009)

Sampras (without Agassi)
16 Grand slams
7 at Wimbledon
5 at USO
4 at AO

McEnroe (without Lendl)
14 Grand Slam Titles
7 USO
3 Wimbledon
3 FO
1 AO

Borg (without McEnroe)
14 Grand Slams
6 French Open
6 Wimbledon
2 USO

Borg (without Connors)
14 Grand Slams
6 French Open
5 Wimbledon
3 USO

Agassi (without Sampras)
14 Grand Slams
6 USO
4 AO
3 Wimbledon
1 French Open

Connors (without McEnroe)
14 Grand Slams
8 USO
4 Wimbledon
1 AO
1FO

Connors (without Borg)
13 Grand Slams
6 USO
6 Wimbledon
1 AO

Nadal (without Federer)
12 Grand Slams
6 at FO
4 at Wimbledon
1 at AO
1 at USO

McEnroe (without Connors)
10 Grand Slam Titles
5 USO
5 Wimbledon

McEnroe (without Borg)
8 Grand Slam Titles
4 USO
4 Wimbledon




Federer (without Nadal AND Djokovic)
26 Grand slams total (out of 30 events)
7 at AO (5 consecutive)
7 at Wimbledon (consecutive)
6 at FO (5 consecutive)
6 at USO (consecutive)

18 straight grand slam titles (FO 2005 to USO 2009)

Connors (without McEnroe AND Borg)
19 Grand Slams
9 USO
8 Wimbledon
1 AO
1 FO

McEnroe (without Lendl AND Borg)
17 Grand Slam Titles
8 USO
5 Wimbledon
3 FO
1 AO

Borg (without McEnroe AND Connors)
17 Grand Slams
6 French Open
6 Wimbledon
5 USO

I’m not doing Lendl (8 total GS titles), because it’s hard to pick his biggest rival. Consider:

He’s lost GS tournies to:

Becker (five times)
Wilander (four times)
Connors (three times)
McEnroe (three times)

And for fun, Andy Roddick without Federer:

9 GS
4 Wimbledon (3 in a row from 2003-2005)
3 USO
2 AO

To recap,

Federer is clearly hurt the worst by a single rival—Nadal, obviously. Federer loses potentially 7 grand slam titles because Nadal decided to play tennis, including an amazing 5 at the French Open alone. With Nadal, Federer is probably the best player ever; without Nadal, Federer makes a mockery of the sport and dominates it like no athlete since Babe Ruth in baseball. Without Nadal, he would have a career grand slam, five times over and an incredible 11 straight GS titles streak. He would also finish tied for first at Wimbledon, the French Open, the US Open, and be first at the AO in total titles

McEnroe is equally killed by Lendl. McEnroe (7 actual GS wins), lost to Lendl 3 times at the USO, 3 times at the FO, and once at the AO. Although, this is much more optimistic for McEnroe, because 4 of these loses were in quarters, where 6 of Federer’s losses to Nadal were in the finals and one in the semi’s. Without Lendl, McEnroe would have a decent claim as the greatest ever over Federer due to his doubles superiority and the irrelevancy of the AO during much of McEnroe’s prime.

Connors is almost equally hurt by McEnroe (6 lost) and Borg (5). Without both, Connors wins an incredible 19 grand slams, including a remarkable 9 USO titles and 8 Wimbledon titles (both records, even on this list) and a career slam.

Agassi, without Sampras, would probably be considered one of the 3 greatest players ever.

Sampras and Nadal are hurt little by a single rival, each only netting an additional 2 titles.

Without Federer, Andy Roddick might be considered a second tier all-time great player, instead he’s considered a one-slam wonder. I should take back my comment about Federer being hurt the most by the existence of one other player. Clearly Roddick and his 2-20 record and 0-8 record in grand slams against Federer is hurt more than any other player on this list.

It is very interesting when you look at Lendl, McEnroe, Connors

 

[zagor]

Well, history can s shine a light on the truth. The year that Federer had mono this forum was overrun by hostile Nadal fans who attacked Federer and his wife relentlessly. The effort actually seemed rather concerted, and the attacks were not limited to his playing style. Some of us who were here then will not forget that.

Yep, it definitely goes both ways and Fed received more than his fair share of bashing, Nadal fans wanting to play victim make me laugh at times, it seems they can dish it but can't take it.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

One thing people forget about is passion and motivation, who's to say any of these players wouldn't get bored, or have the motivation to continue improving or getting better? Sampras said he improved his second serve because of Agassi, and Federer's backhand has continued to improve.

Not it hasn't. It's far worse. I think Nadal has a lot to do with that. When Nadal started kicking balls up to his shoulder/neck on the BH side, creating error-fests and shanks off Federer's BH, Federer lost a lot of confidence in the shot and I think that is largely responsible for the conservative approach he has taken off that side ever since.

Nadal got in Federer's head.

I dislike Nadal because I can't stand his tennis style and other things about his demeanor (the exaggerated celebrating and biting the trophies), but I'd be in denial to suggest he's not a huge matchup problem for Federer on every surface and one of the all-time great players, whether I like watching him or not.

 

[Manus Domini]

This demon straights how much Nadal has single handedly taken away from Roger.

Right, calling the OP a demon for showing some statistics, and then using an adjective as a verb? Did you fail your last CT scan?


Btw for the OP, if there was no Nadal, how do we know Fed would have that many? Are you sure someone else wouldn't have broken through?

 

[jackson vile]

Right, calling the OP a demon for showing some statistics, and then using an adjective as a verb? Did you fail your last CT scan?


Btw for the OP, if there was no Nadal, how do we know Fed would have that many? Are you sure someone else wouldn't have broken through?

LOL, you have no sense of humor at all, don't be so daft. You think Nadal could only angle straight?

Tell us, who would have broken through????

 

[namelessone]

Federer and Nadal. Inseparable.

 

[Shangri La]

OP's numbers are flawed.

In Fed's case, if Nadal didnt exist, someone else will play Fed in the finals - Fed won't win these titles automatically by just being in the finals. OP's numbers will be correct only if Fed won them all.

Also, if Fed is less motivated (by weaker competitions and easier GS titles), he wouldnt play at such a high level, for this long period. Don't forget the butterfly effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

 

[IvanisevicServe]

OP's numbers are flawed.

In Fed's case, if Nadal didnt exist, someone else will play Fed in the finals - Fed won't win these titles automatically by just being in the finals. OP's numbers will be correct only if Fed won them all.

Also, if Fed is less motivated (by weaker competitions and easier GS titles), he wouldnt play at such a high level, for this long period. Don't forget the butterfly effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Think it's a pretty safe bet he would have won most of them. Mariano Puerta in the FO final against Federer? If Puerta had won, everyone would've wanted go give it to Federer anyway after Puerta was caught doping.

There was really nobody even close to Federer aside from Nadal until 2008. Best opportunity would've been young Djokovic in FO 2007, but that still seems long a long shot.

Djokovic may have beaten him in FO 2008, though...given Federer's questionable form.

But I'm going to go ahead and say Federer does FO-Wim-USO in 2005, and calendar slams in 06 and 07. He wins Wimbledon 08, AO 09, and the FO this year.

So that's 22 slams. Then you have to think about all the Masters/1,000's...probably 2-3 Monte Carlo titles given his 3 straight finals in 06-08. Gotta think he wins Rome 06. Gotta think he wins Madrid 10. Who knows about Miami 04.

 

[Shangri La]

Think it's a pretty safe bet he would have won most of them. Mariano Puerta in the FO final against Federer? If Puerta had won, everyone would've wanted go give it to Federer anyway after Puerta was caught doping.

There was really nobody even close to Federer aside from Nadal until 2008. Best opportunity would've been young Djokovic in FO 2007, but that still seems long a long shot.

Djokovic may have beaten him in FO 2008, though...given Federer's questionable form.

But I'm going to go ahead and say Federer does FO-Wim-USO in 2005, and calendar slams in 06 and 07. He wins Wimbledon 08, AO 09, and the FO this year.

So that's 22 slams. Then you have to think about all the Masters/1,000's...probably 2-3 Monte Carlo titles given his 3 straight finals in 06-08. Gotta think he wins Rome 06. Gotta think he wins Madrid 10. Who knows about Miami 04.

If Fed played in the hypothetical scenario at the level he has been in reality then yes I definitely agree with you. But I always believe you can only be better than the second best by so much. Nadal (i.e. a somewhat close competition) was a big reason Fed was so far ahead of the rest (and trust me I'm a big *******). That's why I quoted the butterfly effect.

 

[dingo]

Basically Nadal is good for tennis no? I would have been bored out of my mind by ANYONE winning 23 slams.

I've been rooting for Fed all along, but I couldn't agree with you more. It was getting old on me that Fed would be winning everything virtually all the time. I definitely love the mix we are seeing now and I like to watch other guys too... including Rafa. It's the competition that counts in the end for me, the drama of it. You've gotta admire the brand of tennis Rafa brings to the table even if you are rooting for someone else. When there is no competition and I'm just sitting in a chair watching winners flying from only one side of the court, I tend to just use "Skip Forward" on my remote a lot.

 

[Manus Domini]

LOL, you have no sense of humor at all, don't be so daft. You think Nadal could only angle straight?

Tell us, who would have broken through????

I completely agree with the following:

OP's numbers are flawed.

In Fed's case, if Nadal didnt exist, someone else will play Fed in the finals - Fed won't win these titles automatically by just being in the finals. OP's numbers will be correct only if Fed won them all.

Also, if Fed is less motivated (by weaker competitions and easier GS titles), he wouldnt play at such a high level, for this long period. Don't forget the butterfly effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

I mean, who is to say that Nadal didn't elevate his form a good amount? He actually had one person who was consistently beating him, so he always had to improve just to stay even with Rafa, though I don't think the H2H was ever positive in Fed's favor.

Would he have at least 20 slams? Probably. But can you really say he would definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, have won every single slam? No.

 

[jackson vile]

Think it's a pretty safe bet he would have won most of them. Mariano Puerta in the FO final against Federer? If Puerta had won, everyone would've wanted go give it to Federer anyway after Puerta was caught doping.

There was really nobody even close to Federer aside from Nadal until 2008. Best opportunity would've been young Djokovic in FO 2007, but that still seems long a long shot.

Djokovic may have beaten him in FO 2008, though...given Federer's questionable form.

But I'm going to go ahead and say Federer does FO-Wim-USO in 2005, and calendar slams in 06 and 07. He wins Wimbledon 08, AO 09, and the FO this year.

So that's 22 slams. Then you have to think about all the Masters/1,000's...probably 2-3 Monte Carlo titles given his 3 straight finals in 06-08. Gotta think he wins Rome 06. Gotta think he wins Madrid 10. Who knows about Miami 04.

Correct 22 slams would have been amazing. Shows what a great impact Nadal has had and what a challenge he is.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Imagine Nadal's numbers sans Djokovic! Wow.

 

[Clarky21]

Imagine Nadal's numbers sans Djokovic! Wow.

Imagine this board without your trolling! Wow.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Correct 22 slams would have been amazing. Shows what a great impact Nadal has had and what a challenge he is.

Couldn't agree more.