How many slams would Nadal win with Federer's talent?

[Backspin1183]

Federer may just be the most talented player of all time. Whether he's the best player of all time may be debatable but his talent cannot be questioned IMO.

Nadal on the other hand is known for his hardwork, great mental toughness, willingness to tweak his game to do great on all surfaces, etc etc

Nadal is also a very talented player, but very few would say he's more gifted than Federer. I'm a Nadal fan (Federer's too) and I'd say Fed is the more gifted of the two.

I would also say that Nadal's done more with his talent than Federer has with his. I know this is debatable too, but that's just my opinion.

So, let's say if Nadal had Federer's talent, tennis skills, do you think with his fighting spirit, athletism, and desire to keep improving, he'd have won more slams than Federer has against the same competition that Roger faced?

If so, how many slams would Rafa with Fed's talent have won by 2013, aged 27? And how many slams in his career?

 

[victorcruz]

You speak as if Federer underachieved winning 17 slams. 17 slams is a LOT, 4 more than the closest. But I do agree with you for the most part, Federer is easily more talented but Nadal has more heart. But it's ridiculous to think Nadal would have 27 slams by now :lol:

I'd say he would have maybe 17 or 18 by now though

 

[mud volcano]

moonballing and talent not possible simultaneously.

 

[Backspin1183]

You speak as if Federer underachieved winning 17 slams. 17 slams is a LOT, 4 more than the closest. But I do agree with you for the most part, Federer is easily more talented but Nadal has more heart. But it's ridiculous to think Nadal would have 27 slams by now :lol:

I'd say he would have maybe 17 or 18 by now though

Sorry, I meant how many slams would Rafa have won at 27 years of age with Fed's talent

 

[Backspin1183]

moonballing and talent not possible simultaneously.

I know. We all can moonball but you don't win a tennis match with moonballs.

Your point?

 

[degrease]

Everyone has different abilities or gifts. Its the same as what would have happened if nadal played right handed. Combining diff attributes is like describing the ultimate player.

 

[mud volcano]

I know. We all can moonball but you don't win a tennis match with moonballs.

Your point?

my point?
it is enough win enough points to win 13 slams and 26 masters only !

 

[Backspin1183]

my point?
it is enough win enough points to win 13 slams and 26 masters only !

You mean mooballing wins you 13 slams and record 26 masters????

Do you happen to be a fan of a certain Swiss player? Or of a certain Serbian tennis player?

 

[Backspin1183]

Everyone has different abilities or gifts. Its the same as what would have happened if nadal played right handed. Combining diff attributes is like describing the ultimate player.

I know, but how many slams do you think Nadal can win in his career if he had Federer's talent in tennis?

 

[tennisjedi]

About 17 slams.
He would've had the career double slam.

 

[mud volcano]

You mean mooballing wins you 13 slams and record 26 masters????

Do you happen to be a fan of a certain Swiss player? Or of a certain Serbian tennis player?

how you know I am fan of dopeky? $!

 

[Backspin1183]

how you know I am fan of dopeky? $!

So, who's your favourite male tennis player then? Is it Federer? Sounds like it.

 

[FreeBird]

You mean mooballing wins you 13 slams and record 26 masters????

Do you happen to be a fan of a certain Swiss player? Or of a certain Serbian tennis player?

You don't know favorite player of mud volcano? :lol:

 

[powerangle]

You speak as if Federer underachieved winning 17 slams. 17 slams is a LOT, 4 more than the closest. But I do agree with you for the most part, Federer is easily more talented but Nadal has more heart. But it's ridiculous to think Nadal would have 27 slams by now :lol:

I'd say he would have maybe 17 or 18 by now though

You mean 3 more than the closest. Sampras still has 14 slams ya know. Even though Nadal is likely to become the closest very soon.

 

[-RF-]

This is a silly question

 

[NatF]

OP is your question essentially what if you added all of Nadal's gifts and Federer's gifts together and then set it lose on the rest of the tour? The answer would probably be multiple calendar Grand Slams.

 

[illusions30]

OP is your question essentially what if you added all of Nadal's gifts and Federer's gifts together and then set it lose on the rest of the tour? The answer would probably be multiple calendar Grand Slams.

Pretty much. Nobody would be able to cope with this hypothetical player. Not even Djokovic.

 

[cknobman]

Every slam he ever played.

So that makes 36 I think.

He would have won 36.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

That is a scary thought!!!!

 

[wy2sl0]

The opposite is a more legitimate question. You can't learn talent, but you can work harder. What if Federer played with a great amount of killer instinct, and intensity? How many would he have won? What if he practiced like Nadal - 100% all the time?

He would probably be injured more often, and may have 2-4 more slams.

Nadal would have been better but he wouldn't have been pushed as hard because he would be so good.

What am I saying? People are shaped because of the variables they are dealt. He may have won a couple more but not as much as you think. He would have played righty and with less spin if he had the ability to hit winners everywhere. Not the same Nadal.

 

[HoyaPride]

I don't know if I'd say Federer has more talent than Nadal. Federer has a technically perfect game, but that doesn't mean he's more talented. That's largely a product of good coaching.

I'm amazed that Nadal has actually come so far when there were parts of his game that were pretty technically flawed.

 

[Tenez101]

If he was more talented, I think he'd have a different game, so it's hard to make predictions like this. He could've turned out just like Federer, or he could've gone more of the Safin route. Nadal has pretty much perfected his current style of play, who knows if a different style would've worked better or worse for him.

 

[90's Clay]

Rephrase the question to, " How many slams would Nadal win if he got to play against Federer's field in 2004-2007 from 2008-on"

 

[TMF]

Rephrase the question to, " How many slams would Nadal win if he got to play against Federer's field in 2004-2007 from 2008-on"

How many slam would Sampras have won if Hewitt was playing in his era? Not much.

 

[Who Am I?]

Rephrase the question to, " How many slams would Nadal win if he got to play against Federer's field in 2004-2007 from 2008-on"

How many would Sampras win in 2004-07 field? Definitely less than Federer.

 

[Crose]

Rephrase the question to, " How many slams would Nadal win if he got to play against Federer's field in 2004-2007 from 2008-on"

Prime Nadal would wreck that field. Especially if teenage Federer was there, the way teenage Nadal was there for Fed.

 

[90's Clay]

How many would Sampras win in 2004-07 field? Definitely less than Federer.

What?? Prime Sampras could mop up 3 slams a year like Federer from 2004-2007 vs. THAT field. A wayyy weaker grass field, no one to challenge him at the USO, and certainly no Agassi around at the AO. Safin may stop him once. But no one else

Oh thats right.. There was 40 year old Agassi (Who Sampras demolished more times than not when he was even younger)

 

[Who Am I?]

What?? Prime Sampras could mop up 3 slams a year like Federer from 2004-2007 vs. THAT field. A wayyy weaker grass field, no one to challenge him at the USO, and certainly no Agassi around at the AO. Safin may stop him once. But no one else

Sampras would lose to Agassi at AO in 2005 and the US Open in 2004. Then there was also Hewitt who was a bad match up for Pete so expect him to beat Sampras at least once at the US Open and probably at wimbledon once too. And Pete would definitely lose to Rafa in the 2007 wimbledon final and probably to Djokovic at the US Open in 2007 final. So Pete definetely won't mopping up 3 slams per year. Butthurt is strong in your posts.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras would lose to Agassi at AO in 2005 and the US Open in 2004. Then there was also Hewitt who was a bad match up for Pete so expect him to beat Sampras at least once at the US Open and probably at wimbledon once too. And Pete would definitely lose to Rafa in the 2007 wimbledon final and probably to Djokovic at the US Open in 2007 final. So Pete definetely won't mopping up 3 slams per year. Butthurt is strong in your posts.

Sampras almost beat Agassi in 2000 at the Australian.. And Agassi sure as hell was nowhere NEAR in 2005 what he was in the years before that..

And Sampras lose to 34 year old Agassi at the USO?? Sampras never even lost to Agassi at flushing.. And he played the younger BETTER Agassi than the one Fed played


Young Pup Nole isn't beating a seasoned prime Sampras at the USO.

 

[helloworld]

You mean 3 more than the closest. Sampras still has 14 slams ya know. Even though Nadal is likely to become the closest very soon.

I think he only mentioned the current active players. Sampras played in a different era, and thus should not be compared to the current era.

 

[illusions30]

Sampras would lose to Agassi at AO in 2005 and the US Open in 2004. Then there was also Hewitt who was a bad match up for Pete so expect him to beat Sampras at least once at the US Open and probably at wimbledon once too. And Pete would definitely lose to Rafa in the 2007 wimbledon final and probably to Djokovic at the US Open in 2007 final. So Pete definetely won't mopping up 3 slams per year. Butthurt is strong in your posts.

You are snorting glue if you think PRIME Sampras would lose to Agassi at the 2004 U.S Open, when Agassi went 0-4 vs Sampras at the U.S Open, including losing in 1995, 2001, and 2002, all years he was MUCH better than 2004 (and Sampras wasnt even close to prime in 2001 or 2002 either). What can be pretty much certain is he wouldnt have even had to go 5 sets as prime Federer did on that occasion either, considering in none of those other instances could Agassi even take it to 5.

Agassi at the 2005 Australian Open was nothing special either. Sampras had extremely close matches vs Agassi during his absolute 2 different 1 year peak periods at the 95 and 2000 Australian Open. 2005 Australian Open Agassi would have no chance, and lose in straight sets if he played a prime Sampras.

2007 Djokovic beating prime Sampras in a slam final. The same Djokovic who was mentally and physically frail at that point, and choked away 6 set points on his own serve in the 2007 U.S Open final vs Federer. Seriously!?!!

It is really telling your first source to try and deny prime Sampras hypothetical slams in this era was 34-36 year old Agassi. That was the best you could find in that time, which already says alot.

Lastly prime Sampras "definitely" losing to Nadal in a Wimbledon final. I could see arguing possibly, but definitely as you state. There is only one butthurt I see, and it is a butthurt Sampras hater.

 

[RF20Lennon]

If Nadal had Federer's talent. Nothing less than 25 slams. That is very very scary. If someone comes along with Federer's natural godly skill and Nadal's mental warrior rocky toughness. :shock:

 

[RF20Lennon]

What?? Prime Sampras could mop up 3 slams a year like Federer from 2004-2007 vs. THAT field. A wayyy weaker grass field, no one to challenge him at the USO, and certainly no Agassi around at the AO. Safin may stop him once. But no one else

Oh thats right.. There was 40 year old Agassi (Who Sampras demolished more times than not when he was even younger)

I agree with this. Prime Sampras would be almost as good as Fed but not in the FO obviously.

 

[helloworld]

Sampras would lose to Agassi at AO in 2005 and the US Open in 2004. Then there was also Hewitt who was a bad match up for Pete so expect him to beat Sampras at least once at the US Open and probably at wimbledon once too. And Pete would definitely lose to Rafa in the 2007 wimbledon final and probably to Djokovic at the US Open in 2007 final. So Pete definetely won't mopping up 3 slams per year. Butthurt is strong in your posts.

What? Sampras losing to 35 years old Agassi? Even Agassi in his prime got absolutely crushed by Sampras in all their meetings at the US Open. There is no way in hell a broken back old and crippled Agassi would stand a chance against prime Sampras. Forget about Hewitt beating Sampras in his prime. It's not going to happen either.

 

[90's Clay]

What? Sampras losing to 35 years old Agassi? Even Agassi in his prime got absolutely crushed by Sampras in all their meetings at the US Open. There is no way in hell a broken back old and crippled Agassi would stand a chance against prime Sampras. Forget about Hewitt beating Sampras in his prime. It's not going to happen either.

I agree. Hewitt isn't beat prime Sampras at the slams. I don't know where this thought came from. I guess the 2001 USO match vs. 30 year old gassed Sampras who just went through Rafter, Safin Agassi.

Sampras would sleepwalk through the OLD brittle Agassi on all hard courts. No point of even talking about this

 

[TMF]

What? Sampras losing to 35 years old Agassi? Even Agassi in his prime got absolutely crushed by Sampras in all their meetings at the US Open. There is no way in hell a broken back old and crippled Agassi would stand a chance against prime Sampras. Forget about Hewitt beating Sampras in his prime. It's not going to happen either.

But facing Roger is another animal. Agassi said Roger is the best he ever played against. With Peter there was a place to get him but no such place like that with Roger. You can't assumed Sampras would have beaten 2005 Agassi just because Roger is a better player than Sampras.

 

[helloworld]

I agree. Hewitt isn't beat prime Sampras at the slams. I don't know where this thought came from. I guess the 2001 USO match vs. 30 year old gassed Sampras who just went through Rafter, Safin Agassi.

Sampras would sleepwalk through the OLD brittle Agassi on all hard courts. No point of even talking about this

The guy mentioned Hewitt was a bad match up for Sampras. The H2H is 5-4, virtually no difference. Sampras was already way past his prime by the time he played Hewitt and still had a respectable 5-4 H2H. I have no idea why people think Hewitt is a bad match up for Sampras. If Hewitt really was a bad match up, the H2h would look something like 21-10. :lol:

 

[TMF]

I agree. Hewitt isn't beat prime Sampras at the slams. I don't know where this thought came from. I guess the 2001 USO match vs. 30 year old gassed Sampras who just went through Rafter, Safin Agassi.

Sampras would sleepwalk through the OLD brittle Agassi on all hard courts. No point of even talking about this

LOL. 30 years old with all the experience is more equipped to beat a teenage Hewitt who never made a slam final.

 

[helloworld]

But facing Roger is another animal. Agassi said Roger is the best he ever played against. With Peter there was a place to get him but no such place like that with Roger. You can't assumed Sampras would have beaten 2005 Agassi just because Roger is a better player than Sampras.

Agassi in his prime never took Pete to 5 sets at the USO. How is a broken back old man Agassi going to do anything VS prime Sampras? Pete would straight stetted 2004 and 2005 Agassi without having to go throughout 5 sets like Roger did Vs Old man Agassi.

 

[illusions30]

But facing Roger is another animal. Agassi said Roger is the best he ever played against. With Peter there was a place to get him but no such place like that with Roger. You can't assumed Sampras would have beaten 2005 Agassi just because Roger is a better player than Sampras.

On fast courts the only place even peak years Agassi found himself to go against Sampras was the runners up spot. He never beat Sampras in a single fast court major event (Wimbledon, U.S Open, even YEC) ever. That was in 8 or 9 chances as well. On slow courts he had some chance.

To argue 2004 or 2005 Agassi could have beaten Sampras at the U.S Open you basically have to argue Agassi of 2004 or 2005 is better than the Agassi of 1994 (lost to Sampras at YEC and Miami in their 2 biggest meetings of year), 1995 (lost to Sampras at U.S Open), 1999 (lost to Sampras at Wimbledon, YEC, and 4 of 5 matches all in straight sets), 2001 (lost to past his prime Sampras at U.S Open), or 2002 (lost to past his prime Sampras at U.S Open). None of the matches I listed even went to a 5th set. Considering those are widely believed to be Agassi's 5 best years of tennis ever, and 1995 and 1999/early 2000 his 2 peak years of tennis by a HUGE margin, good luck arguing that with any logical conviction.

BTW Sampras on fast courts is every bit as strong a player as prime Federer is.

 

[90's Clay]

I think another thing people are forgetting, Hewitt was already WASHED UP with injuries after 2005. So Sampras wouldn't even have to deal with any type of fast athletic crazy counterpunching Hewitt after 2005

Sampras sleepwalks through 2006 and 2007 and dominates winning the AO, Wimbledon, USO Like Federer. 2005 loses to Safin at the AO. Sleepwalks through Wimbledon and the USO. Like Federer. 2004 maybe loses to Safin at the AO (maybe), Sleepwalks again through Wimbledon and the USO

Roddick is no challenge for Prime Sampras. What Prime Roddick does, Prime Sampras does better. . Dinosaur Agassi sure as hell isn't. Nalbandian/Safin possibly would be but they were MIA so much that Sampras wouldn't' even have to deal with them most likely most of the time. They may match up great with Pete but when you are hardly around to contend it doesn't make much of a difference.

Then Sampras mops up all the WTF titles.

Nadal at the time is no problem for Sampras outside of clay. Sampras wouldn't even have to deal with him anyways during that time since he couldn't get past the QF of hardcourt slams. Sampras is too much for Nadal on grass. Maybe Nadal would grab some non slam HC events vs. Pete but who knows. We don't know how they would match up. Just assuming

 

[illusions30]

I think another thing people are forgetting, Hewitt was already WASHED UP with injuries after 2005. So Sampras wouldn't even have to deal with any type of fast athletic crazy counterpunching Hewitt after 2005

I would say peak Roddick (who while not a great opponent in a historic sense, was a respectable foe) only lasted second half of 2003/2004. By 2005 he had already been turned into a pusher by poor coaching, and only resurected some semblance of his old self again for very odd blips that lasted 1 random tournament once in a blue moon.

Then prime Hewitt, who is a better player than peak Roddick, was completely done after 2005. In 2006 he dropped out of the top 10, and never returned ever again. This certainly wasnt due to the depth of the game (Ljubicic at World #3) at the time either.

Prime Safin, if such a thing can even be said to have existed as he is 5 times as nuttier a player and career as young rebel Agassi was, was over forever after his early/mid 2005 injury.

So even the people referenced as worthy competition, only lasted for a relatively short time each. Look at 2006 and 2007, and apart for Roddick's first month with Connors, these guys were all nowhere on the radar. Not even factors at the top anymore, replaced by Davydenko, Blake, and Ljubicic types.

 

[90's Clay]

I would say peak Roddick (who while not a great opponent in a historic sense, was a respectable foe) only lasted second half of 2003/2004. By 2005 he had already been turned into a pusher by poor coaching, and only resurected some semblance of his old self again for very odd blips that lasted 1 random tournament once in a blue moon.

Then prime Hewitt, who is a better player than peak Roddick, was completely done after 2005. In 2006 he dropped out of the top 10, and never returned ever again. This certainly wasnt due to the depth of the game (Ljubicic at World #3) at the time either.

Prime Safin, if such a thing can even be said to excuse as he is 5 times as nutty a player and career as young Agassi was, was over forever after his early/mid 2005 injury.

So even the people referenced as worthy competition, only lasted for a relatively short time each. Look at 2006 and 2007, and apart for Roddick's first month with Connors, these guys were all nowhere on the radar. Not even factors at the top anymore, replaced by Davydenko, Blake, and Ljubicic types.

Thats a good point. Roddick theoretically was probably close to a blip of his former 2003/2004 self after the fact. 2006 he was awful, didn't look much better in 2007, hell I can't even remember even Roddick did anything in 2008 and he had that one big wimbledon in 2009, than he was pretty much finished after that. Roddick's career really took a nosedive after 2004 after ditching Gilbert.

I do think Nalbandian/Safin could have presented issues to Sampras IF.. A big IF these guys were around.. Problem is they spent more time off the radar then they did on it.

 

[illusions30]

Agree on Nalbandian and Safin, and Nalbandian especialy would have denied Federer a number of slams too if that were the case anyway. To Federer's credit he has generally had the measure even of good Safin over the year, but Nalbandian is a nightmare matchup for Federer when playing well, and hence why their lifetime head to head always remained close even with Nalbandian's never ending issues with fitness and motivation.

 

[ARFED]

I think another thing people are forgetting, Hewitt was already WASHED UP with injuries after 2005. So Sampras wouldn't even have to deal with any type of fast athletic crazy counterpunching Hewitt after 2005

Sampras sleepwalks through 2006 and 2007 and dominates winning the AO, Wimbledon, USO Like Federer. 2005 loses to Safin at the AO. Sleepwalks through Wimbledon and the USO. Like Federer. 2004 maybe loses to Safin at the AO (maybe), Sleepwalks again through Wimbledon and the USO

Roddick is no challenge for Prime Sampras. What Prime Roddick does, Prime Sampras does better. . Dinosaur Agassi sure as hell isn't. Nalbandian/Safin possibly would be but they were MIA so much that Sampras wouldn't' even have to deal with them most likely most of the time. They may match up great with Pete but when you are hardly around to contend it doesn't make much of a difference.

Then Sampras mops up all the WTF titles.

Nadal at the time is no problem for Sampras outside of clay. Sampras wouldn't even have to deal with him anyways during that time since he couldn't get past the QF of hardcourt slams. Sampras is too much for Nadal on grass. Maybe Nadal would grab some non slam HC events vs. Pete but who knows. We don't know how they would match up. Just assuming

You are aware that all mighty Pete lost against past his prime Edberg, still in diapers-Pillipoussis and Karol Kucera during his prime at the AO Open??

I seriously ask this question because you seem to have forgotten this FACT.

Sampras lost to Yzaga and Korda during his prime at the Us open but then again, during 04-07 period he would be hardly losing games at Flushing.

Take it the other way around, if Fed had been playing in the 93-98 period he might had been stopped once by Agassi at AO and the USO. Perhaps Rafter in 97-98 at USO as well, but that`s it. Combine that with at least 2 RG and 3-4 SW19 and Pete`s record in that period looks rather ordinary

 

[mud volcano]

So, who's your favourite male tennis player then? Is it Federer? Sounds like it.

Fernando Chokedasco , Novak Plexicusionovic and much more .

 

[Valdez737]

they are both talented in their own ways but Rafa himself has said that no has ever seen the ball as clearly as Roger Federer. When its all said and done we will see who did better with the talent they were born with.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Around 20.