Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by RAFA2005RG, Oct 10, 2012.
How many Roland Garros titles would Djok, Fed, Ferrer, Murray win in 1990s and 1980s?
Edited Post :
Assuming they didn't have to face each other, and especially Nadal.
Djokovic - 1
Federer - 3
Ferrer - 0
Murray - 0
Nadal 9? He has 7 against weaker field so figure out against Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Kuwrten...
Fewer hardcourts, less strain on his knees, more longevity. And Nadal has won 7 so far. He could win 2 or 3 more. Either way, I was under the impression that it was the current field playing back then. All those awesome players in the same time would just be too much.
9 for Nadal is delusional. He may not even win 9 now even against a clay court field much weaker than the 80s and 90s. Now if it were the 70s clay field minus Borg I would agree with 9.
Without Nadal I think Federer could win 2, but wouldnt make finals as consistently as he does today. Without Nadal plus the deeper field probably 0.
Djokovic about the same, if we are talking about his projected entire career (not just his career one which is only halfway through as it is).
I think I misinterpreted the question. The OP probably meant how they'd do if they alone were playing then, not if all 5 of them were playing back then.
ETA : Wait, they didn't even mention Nadal? I must be dozing off.
Assuming no Nadal going back with him:
Federer- 2 in the 90s (but only 3 finals), 2 in the 80s (about 3 finals again)
Djokovic- 1 or 2 in the 90s currently, but 2 or 3 by careers end. About the same in the 80s.
Murray and Ferrer- 0 of course. Dumb to even include them.
Federer is a far better Claycourter than Djokovic. No way Djokovic would win more FOs than Federer.
Djokovic has a good chance to end up with equal or more clay achievements than Federer. Do you expect Djokovic to win atleast 1 French before he retires? I sure do. Do you expect Federer to win another. I highly doubt even you can say yes to that. Federer has 6 clay Masters. Djokovic at 5 years younger has 3. Djokovic has a great shot to catch up there too. So if Djokovic is to end up with equal or more clay achievements than Federer by careers end today (we dont know for sure now, but probably atleast 55% likely to happen) why wouldnt it happen then.
As for who is the better clay courter, Djokovic has IMO been a better clay courter than Federer as far as level of play atleast ever since 2008:
2008: Federer played better at Monte Carlo, Djokovic better at Rome (way better), better at Hamburg, and better at Roland Garros. The last 2 both lost to Nadal, but at RG 2008 Djokovic won three times as many games while Federer sucked his way through an easy draw to the final before getting massacred. Hamburg is closer but Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and in form Nadal, while Federer choked in losing to a worn one.
2009: Nadal and Djokovic were both much better than Federer this year until the famous Madrid semi which seemed to kill both.
2010: Both sucked equally pretty much.
2011: Obviously overall Djokovic despite the FO semi result.
2012: Again obviously overall Djokovic.
By careers end I think you will see Djokovic rated slightly above Federer on both Australian hard courts and Clay.
Dumb to include Murray, but Ferrer could beat on a chump like Muster or Chang.
I cant wait to see Mustard's reaction to this one.
Federer made 5 FO finals and won 1. Let's see what Djokovic does. And let's not forget, Federer's prime coincided with Nadal's best on-clay years. It was only after Nadal went past his beastly best on Clay that Djokovic started to get some success.
And ever since 2008? Federer's best years were 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 (even if his biggest success was in 2009). Djokovic's best were 2008, 2011 and 2012. You're basically comparing Federer's worst to Djokovic's best. And even then, Federer has been more successful. Federer made 3 finals and has had 1 win at the FO. Djokovic? 1 final.
None, obviously (and Nadal wouldn't have won any either), they were all much too young.
Agree for Chang, but peak Muster could have taken on Nadal on clay, so, no.
Obviously if all 4 were to play in the 90's along each other, Djokovic, Ferrer and Murray would retire slamless.
I was only playing with Ferrer and Muster (not for Chang though). But massive LOL if you think Muster would get a set off Nadal in a FO final. Muster would only force a tie-break against 2012 Rafa on clay. It would be like Almagro - Nadal.
Yes that is correct. For those who don't understand, the scenario is each player on their own going back. Not all of them going back together.
Speculative question, and so a speculative answer. In the 90s there were many more clay specialists. So the draws would be much deeper. If i look at draws of some years by Courier or Kuerten, they had to beat a seasoned clay courter in any round from the first round onwards. So while i think, that from potential Federer and Djokovic were better than some RG winners like say Chang or Moya, it would be up to see, how they would react to 7 rounds of continuous clay battles at best of five. Rios for instance was beaten at RG not so much by a single player, but by the cumulative efforts of a dangerous row of clay courters, like Costa, Corretja and so on.
Murray lost to Nadal in the 2011 Roland Garros semi-finals. It was straight sets but Murray had 18 breakpoints. So based on the likelihood that Murray is only going to get better on clay (plus he's broken through mentally by winning the US Open, so he should be better at converting breakpoints), plus the possibility that if Nadal wasn't present in 2011 Murray may have won Roland Garros, Murray deserves a mention, as he's probably Nadal's main rival at Roland Garros for the next 5 years.
However, none of those claycourt specialist were as good as Nadal and Federer. And Djokovic can make a case to be better than almost all of them. So the big 3 today, are superior to anyone or 99% of those in the 90s and 80s. And, Ferrer is extremely underrated because he's had to deal with those big 3, and he would have been able to take care of the traditional golden retrievers. People forget how defensive the clay game was in the 1990s and earlier. And the balls were far slower in the 90s. In fact, the balls in 2011 were faster than anything we've ever seen at Roland Garros.
I think you seriously underestimate Muster at his best on clay. In '95-96, he was eating Spaniards for breakfast left and right (and there were a lot of them on clay at that time). Not saying he would crush Nadal every time (he obviously wouldn't), but he would push him to the limit and win some, imho.
Comparing him to Almagro is like comparing Ivanisevic to Tipsarevic on grass (and I mean old grass), don't know how much farther off-base you can go than that.
Actually, I'll go further than that: on clay, peak Muster would win more matches vs Nadal than vs Federer, imho (attacking players always were his worst nightmare, just ask Edberg). But lefty vs lefty, playing on stamina? Better get ready for 10-hour matches...
How do you know, that Nadal, Federer or Djokovic were clearly better clay courters than prime Bruguera, Courier, Muster or Kuerten, or even Rios from his potential? If you know the definitive answer for you beforehand, why do you put on the question?
The question is how many Roland Garros titles do you think Djok, Fed, Ferrer, Murray would win in the 1990s and 1980s. I know Djok and Fed are better than all or 99% of the clay players of the 90s and 80s, and Ferrer and Murray would also rule a lot of them, but the question still remains "how many Roland Garros titles would they (each player individually) win?"
Djokovic - 1 or 2.
Federer - 2 or 3.
Murray - Maybe 1.
Ferrer - Maybe 1.
It's laughable to suggest Djokovic was the better claycourter in 2009. Federer won the French and a Masters. What did Djokovic win? He didn't even make the second week at Roland Garros.
If Nole can't win at least two French OPen titles before he retires I would be literally shocked. He will surpass Fed's achievements before its all said and done.
And Nole shouldn't even be mention ahead of Soderling. The best clay court player in 2009 was (1)Federer, (2)Soderling, (3)Nadal.
Nadal only needed one leg to beat Djokovic at Roland Garros, in 4 sets. Nadal said he had knee injections to numb his knee before the Roland Garros final. And now Nadal has said he won't be playing as many hardcourt events, as he focuses on clay in 2013. Good luck winning a set Djok!
8 titles can take others from past ..
ROTFL and Federer wins more RG titles than Nadal how exactly!?!? Hiring Tonya Harding. Unfortunately Roger spends more time in jail than playing RG if that is the case.
Since when do we count games to compare results at a tournament unless it is the WTF? This is just an example how you are just looking at results and trying to find a way to point something out.
Until? Are you serious? Well guess what the clay season isn't over until the RG final is played and if one match, as epic as it really was, (which was played weeks before the final btw) is the reason why both weren't strong enough then there is something really wrong with their schedule.
I said UNTIL the Madrid semi which killed both Nadal and Djokovic he was much better than Federer on clay that year, which beyond any doubt whatsoever he was. Obviously that match basically killed both Nadal and Djokovic at that event and RG as well, and Federer was the delighted beneficiary of that.
Actually you could say, Nadal was up two breaks in that third set before he took his foot off the gas and let Djokovic in before he slaughtered him in the tie-break.
How the hell did he nearly beat Nadal when Rafa won the first set and he got slaughtered in the third set?
lol, you are a typical delusional Rafa ****. I'll laugh at you when Novak spanks Nadal at RG. yeah, Nadal needed only one leg my ars, uh, oh ... whatever dude. It will be funny if Rafa doesn't even make the final next year.
First of all you don't need to call me an idiot!
Second of all why are you avoiding my questions? All I did was asking you something and since you have no answer you need to insult me?
And to top all that you are trying to be the "mature" guy and putting me on your great list?
I'm not a "****" or what you guys call that, that's the reason why I usually don't answer to posts of you but this one was just too ridiculous.
And while we are at it, if you are so annoyed by all those kids who are creating topics after topics and are just trying to annoy people. Why isn't RG2005 aka NSK aka 10 more accounts on your list?
Separate names with a comma.