If Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic Were all the same age.

[Clay lover]

Turns out Nadal's prime was 08/09 when he barely beat an aging, back-ill Federer at Wimbledon and the Australian Open both in 5 sets with Fed having tons of chances to win himself and his clay prime was 2005-2008 when he also struggled against Federer on his worst surface.

Dude, that WAS his prime. Federer is perhaps the best player of all time and was a MILES better player than Nadal on grass and hard overall. So who would expect Fed NOT to give Nadal trouble even if Nadal was in his prime and even if there is a matchup issue?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Now according to ****s Nadal "struggled" with Federer on clay, ROTFL, ****ism knows no bounds. What about Federer whose peak was from 04-06 where he lost 2 out of 3 outdoor hard court matches to a 17-19 year old and was 2 points from a 3 straight set loss in the only win; where he was owned by Nadal everytime out on clay; and when he was one bad serve game from Nadal from going down 2 sets to 1 vs a green Nadal who was just starting to learn to play on grass in the Wimbledon final.

 

[cc0509]

Now according to ****s Nadal "struggled" with Federer on clay, ROTFL, ****ism knows no bounds. What about Federer whose peak was from 04-06 where he lost 2 out of 3 outdoor hard court matches to a 17-19 year old and was 2 points from a 3 straight set loss in the only win; where he was owned by Nadal everytime out on clay; and when he was one bad serve game from Nadal from going down 2 sets to 1 vs a green Nadal who was just starting to learn to play on grass in the Wimbledon final.

Nobody is saying Nadal is a bad player, in fact far from it. Nadal is one of the greats but he is no Federer and has not dominated in his prime the way Federer did in his.

The fact is when Fed was in his prime and played Nadal from 2005-2007, Nadal only dominated Fed on clay with a 6-1 win ratio. On hard courts their record was 3-2 in favor of Fed and on grass it was 2-0 in favor of Fed.
You can spin whatever you wish but the stats clearly show that Nadal was superior to Fed on clay only. Get over it. Your boy is never surpassing Fed in terms of overall greatness.

 

[jackson vile]

Again, Novak is the only one that can beat both on a regular basis. How is he not going to be #1?

 

[Raz11]

Lets break this down by year to see who would win more slams if they were all the same age as Djokovic.

2006: 2005 Nadal, 2006 Djokovic, 2000 Federer
Djokovic and Federer is still irrelevant at this point.
RG: 2005 Nadal

2007: 2006 Nadal, 2007 Djokovic, 2001 Federer
Federer had beaten Sampras at this age but he won't be a threat just yet especially with Nadal around.

RG: 2006 Nadal
W: 2006 Nadal, Federer isn't here to stop Nadal from winning his first Wimbledon now.
US: 2007 Djokovic, Same for W, Federer isn't here to stop Djokovic.

2008: 2007 Nadal, 2008 Djokovic, 2002 Federer
Federer still isn't a threat while 2008 will be very similar to 2007.

AO: 2008 Djokovic
RG: 2007 Nadal
W: 2007 Nadal
US: 2008 Djokovic/2008 Murray. This one is a complete toss up. Neither was playing that impressive to have a clear advantage over the other.

2009: 2008 Nadal, 2009 Djokovic, 2003 Federer
Federer wins his first GS at this age but not this time. 2008 Nadal will be too good at W this year.

AO: 2009 Verdasco/ 2009 Roddick
RG: 2008 Nadal, 2009 Soderling isn't beating 2008 Nadal here.
W: 2008 Nadal
US: 2009 Del Potro/2009 Djokovic. I would favor Del Potro considering his performance that fortnight.

2010: 2009 Nadal, 2010 Djokovic, 2004 Federer
Federer finally steps up here while Nadal has his bad year.

AO: 2009 Nadal, Nadal arguably played his best Hard Court Match at AO 09. Don't think 2004 Federer will be able to handle him with all the existing disadvantages.
RG: 2010 Soderling, With Nadal injured and no one else a legitimate threat, as long as Soderling can maintain that devastating form against Federer he should win.
W: 2004 Federer, 2009 Nadal was injured at this point and don't see Berdych or anyone else giving Federer that much problem
US: 2004 Federer, 2010 Federer came really close to beating Djokovic last year. 2004 Federer would have sealed the deal with his performance he showed at the 2004 Final ( 2 Bagels that day)

2011: 2010 Nadal, 2011 Djokovic, 2005 Federer
Federer and Djokovic is at their prime at this point, while Nadal is starting to show some evidence of declining.

AO: 2011 Djokovic, This was extremely close but I think Djokovic would have edged 2005 Federer much like Safin did in the 2005 SF.
RG: 2010 Nadal/ 2011 Djokovic/ 2005 Federer, Any of the top three could win this depending on the draw.
W: 2005 Federer, The only legitimate threat to Federer here would be Nadal but he wasn't exactly playing anywhere near his 2008 level.
US: 2005 Federer, 2011 Federer had almost beaten Djokovic here, Federer would have closed it out and don't think Nadal would have been beaten Federer even with his juiced up serve.

So if they were all the same age as Djokovic, they would each have by the end of 2011:
Nadal: 8 - 9 GS
Djokovic: 3 - 5 GS
Federer: 4 - 5 GS.

Don't see Nadal winning anymore GS outside of RG at this point and even then with Djokovic around and his inevitable decline, it will be a struggle. By this point, he is already started to decline so it wont be helping him much either even if Djokovic is to drop from his current level. I say he will have around 9 -10 GS just because he was an early bloomer and no one was around to stop him from winning back to back RG - W for 3 years straight.

Djokovic will win a few more GS as well as long as he can maintain his 2011 level of play. He will mainly be winning at AO and RG, don't think he will be able to handle Federer at the other two Slams. If he doesn't maintain this level, then I can see Federer dominating the field just like he did a couple years back. And with Nadal on the decline as well on clay, Federer would be winning The Grand Slam once in a while.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Lets break this down by year to see who would win more slams if they were all the same age as Djokovic.

2006: 2005 Nadal, 2006 Djokovic, 2000 Federer
Djokovic and Federer is still irrelevant at this point.
RG: 2005 Nadal

2007: 2006 Nadal, 2007 Djokovic, 2001 Federer
Federer had beaten Sampras at this age but he won't be a threat just yet especially with Nadal around.

RG: 2006 Nadal
W: 2006 Nadal, Federer isn't here to stop Nadal from winning his first Wimbledon now.
US: 2007 Djokovic, Same for W, Federer isn't here to stop Djokovic.

2008: 2007 Nadal, 2008 Djokovic, 2002 Federer
Federer still isn't a threat while 2008 will be very similar to 2007.

AO: 2008 Djokovic
RG: 2007 Nadal
W: 2007 Nadal
US: 2008 Djokovic/2008 Murray. This one is a complete toss up. Neither was playing that impressive to have a clear advantage over the other.

2009: 2008 Nadal, 2009 Djokovic, 2003 Federer
Federer wins his first GS at this age but not this time. 2008 Nadal will be too good at W this year.

AO: 2009 Verdasco/ 2009 Roddick
RG: 2008 Nadal, 2009 Soderling isn't beating 2008 Nadal here.
W: 2008 Nadal
US: 2009 Del Potro/2009 Djokovic. I would favor Del Potro considering his performance that fortnight.

2010: 2009 Nadal, 2010 Djokovic, 2004 Federer
Federer finally steps up here while Nadal has his bad year.

AO: 2009 Nadal, Nadal arguably played his best Hard Court Match at AO 09. Don't think 2004 Federer will be able to handle him with all the existing disadvantages.
RG: 2010 Soderling, With Nadal injured and no one else a legitimate threat, as long as Soderling can maintain that devastating form against Federer he should win.
W: 2004 Federer, 2009 Nadal was injured at this point and don't see Berdych or anyone else giving Federer that much problem
US: 2004 Federer, 2010 Federer came really close to beating Djokovic last year. 2004 Federer would have sealed the deal with his performance he showed at the 2004 Final ( 2 Bagels that day)

2011: 2010 Nadal, 2011 Djokovic, 2005 Federer
Federer and Djokovic is at their prime at this point, while Nadal is starting to show some evidence of declining.

AO: 2011 Djokovic, This was extremely close but I think Djokovic would have edged 2005 Federer much like Safin did in the 2005 SF.
RG: 2010 Nadal/ 2011 Djokovic/ 2005 Federer, Any of the top three could win this depending on the draw.
W: 2005 Federer, The only legitimate threat to Federer here would be Nadal but he wasn't exactly playing anywhere near his 2008 level.
US: 2005 Federer, 2011 Federer had almost beaten Djokovic here, Federer would have closed it out and don't think Nadal would have been beaten Federer even with his juiced up serve.

So if they were all the same age as Djokovic, they would each have by the end of 2011:
Nadal: 8 - 9 GS
Djokovic: 3 - 5 GS
Federer: 4 - 5 GS.

Don't see Nadal winning anymore GS outside of RG at this point and even then with Djokovic around and his inevitable decline, it will be a struggle. By this point, he is already started to decline so it wont be helping him much either even if Djokovic is to drop from his current level. I say he will have around 9 -10 GS just because he was an early bloomer and no one was around to stop him from winning back to back RG - W for 3 years straight.

Djokovic will win a few more GS as well as long as he can maintain his 2011 level of play. He will mainly be winning at AO and RG, don't think he will be able to handle Federer at the other two Slams. If he doesn't maintain this level, then I can see Federer dominating the field just like he did a couple years back. And with Nadal on the decline as well on clay, Federer would be winning The Grand Slam once in a while.

So because Fed was a late bloomer he only gets 4? That bites I think this thread would make more sense if it was primed at the same time, but that's just my opinion.

 

[FlamEnemY]

Nadal is an early bloomer on Clay and Grass and Fed and Novak are relatively late bloomers on all surfaces. I'd say Nadal will win the first few French opens and maybe 1 or 2 Wimbys whereas Fed would win a few hardcourt slams and 1~2 Wimbys. After that though Novak and Fed would take over with Fed winning most of the grass meetings and about 60% of the hard and clay meetings. Nadal may manage to pull of a slam on any surface if he is lucky.

This.

Nadal would have a really hard time winning slams with both Federer and Djokovic in their prime. Djokovic can take him out on every surface (yeah, including grass, even if Nadal is the favourite there) and Federer would be perfectly happy to play him on HC and grass.

...

Too long; didn't read.

Paragraphs are your friend. Please use them for both your and our convenience.

 

[Raz11]

So because Fed was a late bloomer he only gets 4? That bites I think this thread would make more sense if it was primed at the same time, but that's just my opinion.

I think you misunderstood. If Federer was the same age as Djokovic right now, he would have 4 at the moment as opposed to 6 back in 2005. I still think Federer would have reached 16 GS regardless as Djokovic and Nadal won't be winning any GS when they are all 26 - 30 years old and there isn't any newcomers that seems like a be a big threat.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

I think you misunderstood. If Federer was the same age as Djokovic right now, he would have 4 at the moment as opposed to 6 back in 2005. I still think Federer would have reached 16 GS regardless as Djokovic and Nadal won't be winning any GS when they are all 26 - 30 years old and there isn't any newcomers that seems like a be a big threat.

I understood that, I just think it's weird that Novak and Rafa get to be Primed, and Fed is stuck at getting better, not prime. If you continued the numbers, they wouldn't have been so skewed

 

[Raz11]

I understood that, I just think it's weird that Novak and Rafa get to be Primed, and Fed is stuck at getting better, not prime. If you continued the numbers, they wouldn't have been so skewed

Yeah if you continued the numbers it probably would have been:
Nadal: 9 - 10 GS
Djokovic: 6 - 9 GS
Federer 14 - 18 GS.

That is assuming no one shows up in the next few years and Djokovic can maintain this form for at least one more year. I have a feeling Djokovic might end up like Nadal where he has an incredibly, great season but subsequent injuries like his back will just prevent him from sustaining that level like Federer did. That's one of the aspects that will separate Federer from the rest. Probably redo this once they are all retired.

I agree that it's better to compare their prime years instead but something like this is better done when they are all retired instead of speculating. If they were all in their prime, it would solely depend on the draw in the end and don't think anyone will be holding the number 1 position any longer than 3 months. I think the gap will be a lot closer than people thinks between them.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Yeah if you continued the numbers it probably would have been:
Nadal: 9 - 10 GS
Djokovic: 6 - 9 GS
Federer 14 - 18 GS.

That is assuming no one shows up in the next few years and Djokovic can maintain this form for at least one more year. I have a feeling Djokovic might end up like Nadal where he has an incredibly, great season but subsequent injuries like his back will just prevent him from sustaining that level like Federer did. That's one of the aspects that will separate Federer from the rest. Probably redo this once they are all retired.

I agree that it's better to compare their prime years instead but something like this is better done when they are all retired instead of speculating. If they were all in their prime, it would solely depend on the draw in the end and don't think anyone will be holding the number 1 position any longer than 3 months. I think the gap will be a lot closer than people thinks between them.

Now that'd be ridiculous! Djoko doesn't keep it up, Nadal is done, Fed in Prime, no new people emerge. Calendar year golden Slam? I think so! He might have even got to 23 or more

 

[Raz11]

Now that'd be ridiculous! Djoko doesn't keep it up, Nadal is done, Fed in Prime, no new people emerge. Calendar year golden Slam? I think so! He might have even got to 23 or more

And all these people were saying Federer was lucky he wasn't in the same era as these two.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

And all these people were saying Federer was lucky he wasn't in the same era as these two.

True haha.

 

[TopFH]

When i look now on votes it is funny, because Federer is for sure not lighting years ahead of Rafa and Nole for sure. I will try to make analysis for all 3 at their peak level - peak season- it is better than age, because not everyone at the same age is best.. So we can assume 2005, 2005 or 2006 as Federer´s best year, Nadal best is 2008 early 09, even that he won 3 slams last year only US open was impressive. Djokovic peak is 2011 for sure - maybe will get better but don´t think so. Most likely he will drop his level, injured, or physically tired, or stay consistent good similar to this level, but there is not much improovement for him or there is not much of higher level for him than right now, if he even will be better than not by much. We have Djokovic in our mind right now, because of his great season, but one think people forgot here, and that even Federer and Nadal at their peaks - or best age-best seasons weren´t best in everything - Federer at his peak had worse serve than he developed after his post-prime and even he is talking in interviews that his technics-strokes are better than before, it is obvious with age he declined in movements, footwork, deffense and his FH hasn´t so much power, accelaration and because of overall speed on the court his timing is worse, so Federer´s peak had better speed-movements, stamina and footwork - because of this he had better FH- better timing and more power, explossivnes and also his deffense was better, because he was quicker. Than we have Nadal- just like Federer, at his peak he wasn´t best in every way. He was better on clay, and didn´t have such great level on HC. But he was quicker, better deffense, mentally stronger. His serve and HC level are better after-peak, because his game developed more to HC style - what is dominant surface and where Nadal play most matches. Djokovic we all see this season. So it is hard to predict who will be No.1, they are by far better than anybody else on the tour at their peaks, so it is hard to predict who will win which tournament, who will have more points than the other 2 guys. But for sure Roger is not so much better- even when he was dominating everybody else - he didn´t beat younger Nadal more than Nadal him- yes there is match-up issue, but still, about Djokovic - 2011 Djokovic will be tough for Roger to beat regularly- who wants to point out on their RG game- Roger played his highest level at post-prime and Nole didn´t played his highest level. It was almost 5 sets, and only Roger´s suprime serve made the difference - peak Federer didn´t have that serve so peak Federer wouldn´t have it much easier with this Nole for sure. About Nadal- with better confidence, better deffense and playing in 2008 form on clay i do believe he beat Djokovic, but didn´t will be so close on HC for sure, because his HC game developed over the years. So Roger, Nole and Rafa would beat each other on different surfaces. No. 1 could be anyone from this guys and slams probably i will say AO-Nole, RG-Rafa, Wimby-US- Roger- but about US there is still chance for Nole, about RG there is chance for Nole too against Rafa. Also Rafa could win AO or Wimby.

WTF!!! Why so long? I didn't read it BTW.

 

[Benhur]

If they were all the same age, and you want to keep the comparison strictly among these three players, you would need to look at it year by year using as reference what version of each player corresponds to each age (see below). One thing you can say is that Federer in his early peak years did not have to deal with someone the caliber of Djokovic 2011, Nadal 2010 or Nadal 2008. On the other hand, Nadal from the ages of 19 through 21 had to deal with Federer 2005, 2006, 2007, and Djokovic had to deal with all that plus Nadal. This is how I see it up to the present:

Age 19 (Fed 2000, Nad 2005, Djok 2006)
Nadal

Age 20 (Fed 2001, Nad 2006, Djok 2007)
Nadal

Age 21 (Fed 2002, Nad 2007, Djok 2008 )
Nadal

Age 22 (Fed 2003, Nad 2008, Djok 2009)
Nadal

Age 23 (Fed 2004, Nad 2009, Djok 2010)
Federer

Age 24 (Fed 2005, Nad 2010, Djok 2011)
I would say Federer/Djokovic but they would have split things pretty evenly between the three.

Age 25 (Fed 2006, Nad 2011, Djok 2012)
Federer, but from here on we enter much wilder speculation, as we don’t know how Djokovic will play in 2012.

Age 26 (Fed 2007, Nad 2012, Djok 2013)
Federer, maybe, but same as above regarding both Nadal and Djokovic. We simply have no idea what their level will be in the next few years.

Age 27 (Fed 2008, Nad 2013, Djok 2014)

Age 28 (Fed 2009, Nad 2014, Djok 2015)

Age 29 (Fed 2010, Nad 2015, Djok 2016)

Age 30 (Fed 2011, Nad 2016, Djok 2017)

 

[Fedalfan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSNELKE View Post
Neither of them could challenge Fed in his prime.

Fed wins everything except RG which goes to Ralph.
Though Djokovic makes the final of AO, USO and Ralph the SW19 final.

Fed > Ralph > Nole

Agreed with this poster.

Agreed. Couldn't have said this better. Those voting for Novak to be greater than Fedal really haven't seen enough tennis in the last few years. If they were all 24, Fed would be cruising into finals with the grace of a ballerina, Nadal would be muscling his way in, and Djoko would be retiring/giving up in the qtr/semis. Djoko's current dominance has largely come about because his chinks have been mettled and he's had to raise his game and spirit, in the course of the beating he's received at the hands of these two over the last 4 years.

 

[jokinla]

Well Fed is considered to be the GOAT so wouldn't that mean him.

 

[Set Sampras]

Its been a struggle for Rafa this year ( serve decline, dip on clay, back to his short junkball ways, confidence issues, decline in BH, movement etc) but I seriously doubt Nole takes out Rafa of the '10 or '08 wimbledon or even '10 Rafa for that matter. If I had to put all 3 in their respective peaks, I would probably choose Rafa of 08-early 09, 2010) over both most likely. Hes a complete mismatch for Roger, and Im not so sure the '11 Nole sees a whole lot more success either. Maybe a few more wins.. Fed of 23-25 is clearly better then '11 Nole. So.. Yea I would probably give Rafa the edge in this

 

[TennisFan3]

It would be like right now. Nadal would beat Fed. Djoko would beat Nadal. And Fed would beat DJoko.

The only difference is Fed would beat DJoko more than he is now. For instance, prime Fed would NEVER lose a USOpen type match after leading 2 sets to love (2011) or 2 sets to 1 (2010).

So in summary, Fed would win the most slams. Nadal and Djoko would be roughly similar, with a slight advantage to Nadal..

 

[zagor]

Federer would have two top players (Novak, Nadal) that he would be losing to.

Novak could only lose to Nadal.

Nadal coudl only lose to Novak.

But somehow everyone convince themselves that Roger would be #1?

Right, which is why peak Novak beat 24-25 year old Nadal like a drum 6 times in a row while 30 year old grandpa Fed beat Novak at FO and had MPs against him in USO.

Your argument really seems to be rock solid....LOL

 

[zagor]

It would be like right now. Nadal would beat Fed. Djoko would beat Nadal. And Fed would beat DJoko.

The only difference is Fed would beat DJoko more than he is now. For instance, prime Fed would NEVER lose a USOpen type match after leading 2 sets to love (2011) or 2 sets to 1 (2010).

So in summary, Fed would win the most slams. Nadal and Djoko would be roughly similar, with a slight advantage to Nadal..

I wouldn't completely count out Fed against Nadal( aside from RG of course, he has always been helpless against Nadal there), 2009 AO and 2008 Wimbledon were very close encounters and IMO Fed was somewhat past his utmost best tennis level ( talking about 2004-2007 period).

Also we still don't know how things will develop in 2012, for all we know Nadal might fight back and get a few big wins against Novak 2.0, things can change quickly in tennis, we might see a new development in that match-up next year.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Probably not, i think he started to watch tennis in 2008-2009

2009 Wimbledon Final is when he first saw tennis. He flipped the TV away from Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.
Since then he has been trolling his weight daily.......

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

If they'd been the same age, Fed would never have become #1. He would have been completely dominated by Nadal on slow surfaces and by Djoko and Nadal on fast ones. + he was a late bloomer and Nadal was extremely precocious so during the 17-22 years, he would have been massively outplayed by Rafa while during the 23+ years, he would not have been able to develop his confidence because of Djokovic. One could say Fed owes his prestigious reputation entirely to his age difference with Nadal/Djoko who both are greatly equipped to challenge his playing style, something which Roddick/Davy were vastly incompetent at doing. Lucky him.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo the fact that Federer still nearly beats a tip top Djokovic means in his prime he would lose to him? Does not compute.... does not compute.

 

[billnepill]

This poll is nothing but a popularity contest so is pointless. Of course on Federer Palace, Federer will easily win the poll.

On the silly and ridiculous hypothetical it depends what age they are really. From age 18 to 21 Federer isnt even half the player Nadal and to some degree Djokovic were at those ages. We have yet to see Nadal or Djokovic from age 26 and beyond so impossible to say there.

From age 22 to 26, well Nadal would totally own Federer on clay and isnt losing regularly before finals on other surfaces at those ages like he did while Federer dominated when Nadal was young. So Federer who would have no chance to ever beat Nadal on clay, and has trouble with Nadal on all surfaces, would still have a hard time being #1 even then IMO. Then when you factor in Djokovic as well I am not sure how it all turns out in the big picture.

lol, talk about delusional fanboy

no one takes you seriously - look at your poll choice - you picked your boy although he is the worst, the only "non-hypothetical" choice since he lost his nr1 status to only one year younger Djokovic - in the year the latter turned 24.

 

[Benhur]

Right, which is why peak Novak beat 24-25 year old Nadal like a drum 6 times in a row while 30 year old grandpa Fed beat Novak at FO and had MPs against him in USO.

Your argument really seems to be rock solid....LOL

Yes, but the notion that a 30 year old is a tennis grandfather totally incapable of playing anywhere near his peak level, is far from rock solid either. Especially in the case of Federer, who never gave the impression of mistreating his body in his best years, and is obviously still capable of playing as well as ever on a given match or series of matches, even if he can’t keep it up for too many matches.

The history of tennis is full of cases of people who played some of their best tennis after the age of 30. Agassi comes to mind. Connors definitely played his best tennis at 30. Laver was 31 when he completed his calendar Grand Slam. Rosewall was playing top tennis up to the age of at least 34. Pancho Gonzalez, at the age of 41, was still good enough to beat top players who were 15-18 years younger than him, like Smith, Ashe, Newcombe. At 43, he beat 19 year old Jimmy Connors. The historians probably can give you many more examples.

So, unless the human body has changed dramatically in the last few decades, I don’t see what's so extraordinary in the fact that a guy the caliber of Federer at 30 can give a tough match to anyone in the world and beat them. The reason he does it, is simply that he can still play at the same level he once did, though not as often.

 

[Raz11]

I wouldn't completely count out Fed against Nadal( aside from RG of course, he has always been helpless against Nadal there), 2009 AO and 2008 Wimbledon were very close encounters and IMO Fed was somewhat past his utmost best tennis level ( talking about 2004-2007 period).

Also we still don't know how things will develop in 2012, for all we know Nadal might fight back and get a few big wins against Novak 2.0, things can change quickly in tennis, we might see a new development in that match-up next year.

Yeah Nadal was playing at arguably his best on hard and grass during those two matches and Federer still had chances to win. I think people underrate Federer when it comes to their matches. Out of his 12 clay wins over Federer, only 4 of them has been straight set wins for Nadal so it's not like Federer was completely demolished by Nadal in their meetings ( aside from their 2008 French Open).

If they were the same age, I think their H2H would be much more respectable for Federer. Maybe 16-14 in favour of Nadal cause I don't think Federer will be able to overcome that mental block and backhand disadvantage. Nadal will always have that against him and unless Federer brings his best game, Nadal will always have the edge.

Who knows, maybe Federer might actually lead it since by the time Federer reaches his prime, Nadal would have already started to decline so they wouldn't have met so often at clay during Nadal's best years on clay. Not only that but Nadal has become much more consistent on Hard so it's likely that Nadal would have met prime Federer at Hard finals more frequently.

 

[tenniselbow1]

Sick poll... Fed at 82%

 

[Towser83]

If they were all the same age, and you want to keep the comparison strictly among these three players, you would need to look at it year by year using as reference what version of each player corresponds to each age (see below). One thing you can say is that Federer in his early peak years did not have to deal with someone the caliber of Djokovic 2011, Nadal 2010 or Nadal 2008. On the other hand, Nadal from the ages of 19 through 21 had to deal with Federer 2005, 2006, 2007, and Djokovic had to deal with all that plus Nadal. This is how I see it up to the present:

Great post, I had the idea to do the same with just Federer and Nadal. Here is what I see happening each year

Age 19 (Fed 2000, Nad 2005, Djok 2006)
Nadal wins RG, but nothing else, Federer and Djokovic don't win anything else either but Novak looks slightly better than Federer.

Age 20 (Fed 2001, Nad 2006, Djok 2007)
Nadal wins RG but maybe not Wimbledon yet (if we say that a prime Hewitt and Roddick are around) Djokovic possibly wins US Open, Federer wins nothing but emerges as a great talent.

Age 21 (Fed 2002, Nad 2007, Djok 2008 )
Nadal wins RG and Wimbledon, Djokovic wins AO, Federer doesn't win anything.

Age 22 (Fed 2003, Nad 2008, Djok 2009)
Nadal wins RG but loses Wimbledon and Federer wins it for his first major, he also maybe wins US Open (tougher competition makes him a better player)

Age 23 (Fed 2004, Nad 2009, Djok 2010)
Federer wins AO, Wimbeldon and US AND RG as well if Nadal has the knee trouble in this "reality", if not, it's Nadal's again

Age 24 (Fed 2005, Nad 2010, Djok 2011)
Toughest year to predict with Nadal having had a great 2010, Federer a great 2005 and Djokovic a great 2011. I'd say though Nadal wasn't playing great all of last year and didn't have to because of lack of competition. Federer wins Wimbledon, Nadal RG, Djokovic the AO, the US Open is wide open.

Age 25 (Fed 2006, Nad 2011, Djok 2012)
Federer wins RG beating Nadal (who played rubbish this year and Federer was very good in 2006) difficult to predict the rest but I'd say Federer would win Wimbledon as well.

So up til next year, roughly

Nadal 6-8
Djokovic 4-6
Federer 7-10

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Federer by far. However, If Djokovic wins 10-12 slams over the next 4 years I will be glad to accept that I was wrong.

 

[Benhur]

Great post, I had the idea to do the same with just Federer and Nadal. Here is what I see happening each year

Age 19 (Fed 2000, Nad 2005, Djok 2006)
Nadal wins RG, but nothing else, Federer and Djokovic don't win anything else either but Novak looks slightly better than Federer.

Age 20 (Fed 2001, Nad 2006, Djok 2007)
Nadal wins RG but maybe not Wimbledon yet (if we say that a prime Hewitt and Roddick are around) Djokovic possibly wins US Open, Federer wins nothing but emerges as a great talent.

Age 21 (Fed 2002, Nad 2007, Djok 2008 )
Nadal wins RG and Wimbledon, Djokovic wins AO, Federer doesn't win anything.

Age 22 (Fed 2003, Nad 2008, Djok 2009)
Nadal wins RG but loses Wimbledon and Federer wins it for his first major, he also maybe wins US Open (tougher competition makes him a better player)

Age 23 (Fed 2004, Nad 2009, Djok 2010)
Federer wins AO, Wimbeldon and US AND RG as well if Nadal has the knee trouble in this "reality", if not, it's Nadal's again

Age 24 (Fed 2005, Nad 2010, Djok 2011)
Toughest year to predict with Nadal having had a great 2010, Federer a great 2005 and Djokovic a great 2011. I'd say though Nadal wasn't playing great all of last year and didn't have to because of lack of competition. Federer wins Wimbledon, Nadal RG, Djokovic the AO, the US Open is wide open.

Age 25 (Fed 2006, Nad 2011, Djok 2012)
Federer wins RG beating Nadal (who played rubbish this year and Federer was very good in 2006) difficult to predict the rest but I'd say Federer would win Wimbledon as well.

So up til next year, roughly

Nadal 6-8
Djokovic 4-6
Federer 7-10

Sounds pretty plausible. I would only disagree about Wimbledon at age 22. Nadal’s level of play at that age (2008 ) from mid April through mid August was on a remarkably high peak on all surfaces, winnng 8 of 10 tournaments entered in that period, including 2 on grass and 2 on hard). I think it’s not unreasonable to suppose he could have handled Federer 2003 at least as well as he handled Federer 2008, if not better. (Through Halle and Wimbledon, Federer had not lost a set to anyone before the 2008 final, so am not sure how much better he could have been playing on that surface in 2008, and it still wasn't enough).

Other than that, it sounds reasonable to me.

 

[zagor]

Yes, but the notion that a 30 year old is a tennis grandfather totally incapable of playing anywhere near his peak level, is far from rock solid either. Especially in the case of Federer, who never gave the impression of mistreating his body in his best years, and is obviously still capable of playing as well as ever on a given match or series of matches, even if he can’t keep it up for too many matches.

The history of tennis is full of cases of people who played some of their best tennis after the age of 30. Agassi comes to mind. Connors definitely played his best tennis at 30. Laver was 31 when he completed his calendar Grand Slam. Rosewall was playing top tennis up to the age of at least 34. Pancho Gonzalez, at the age of 41, was still good enough to beat top players who were 15-18 years younger than him, like Smith, Ashe, Newcombe. At 43, he beat 19 year old Jimmy Connors. The historians probably can give you many more examples. I will remeber those pearsl of wisdom when Nadal is getting his *** kicked on clay at the age of 30 by some young gun though, I wonder if your response then will still be well Nadal must still be playing amazing tennis because Pancho Gonzales played great tennis in his 40s many moons ago.

So, unless the human body has changed dramatically in the last few decades, I don’t see what's so extraordinary in the fact that a guy the caliber of Federer at 30 can give a tough match to anyone in the world and beat them. The reason he does it, is simply that he can still play at the same level he once did, though not as often.

Of course Fed can still play great tennis at times because well he's the goddamn Federer. I use the term "grandpa" to purposefully exaggerate, especially when I'm answering to such appalingly dumb posts.

However giving examples of players playing great at the age of 30 beyond that happened like 50 years ago or something(when conditions, surfaces and balls, technology were very different from this utterly genious mud slow HC era) or citing Agassi who's a very special case ain't gonna convince me of anything. I've been following tennis since the early 90s and in 99% of the cases players who peaked around the age of 24-25 suffer a noticable decline in skills, both physical(wear and tear) and mental(burnout) and Fed from what I've seen(as someone who watched him play fairly regularly since 2001) is no exception, there's no doubt in my mind that a 2005/2006 version of Fed would wipe the court with 2010/2011 version of himself.

Now I never said that because Fed beat Novak at FO this year and had MPs at USO that means he would surely beat him easily/dominate him if he was at the peak of his powers. That would be oversimplifying things, too many variables go into any given match, especially between top players. However claiming that 24-25 Fed wouldn't stand a chance against 2011 Novak(which is what post I replied to initally implied)when 29-30 year old Fed freakin beat him is simply beyond stupid.

 

[winstonplum]

Fed would have a lot less slams and Rafa would have a lot more.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Federer has been pushing 30 since he was 26 according to ****s, so now that he is 30 he must already be pushing 40 now. By contrast Sampras who lost to Federer at Wimbledon at 30, and even Agassi who was losing to Federer (with mighty struggle most times) at 34 and 35 were spring chickens, in their athletic peak.

 

[NikeWilson]

Nadal wasn't even in his prime and he was beating Federer in Federer's prime.

So there's no way possible that Federer could be #1.

 

[Agassifan]

Novak could only lose to Nadal.

Nadal coudl only lose to Novak.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[anantak2k]

Federer has been pushing 30 since he was 26 according to ****s, so now that he is 30 he must already be pushing 40 now. By contrast Sampras who lost to Federer at Wimbledon at 30, and even Agassi who was losing to Federer (with mighty struggle most times) at 34 and 35 were spring chickens, in their athletic peak.

You have to understand though that the game has become a lot more physical over the recent years. Just look at the Nadal vs Djokovic US Open final... or their Wimbledon Semifinals. When Sampras was playing courts were faster, points were shorter. Lately, the game has become slower and more defense oriented. This makes footwork very important. There is a reason why players like Soderling or Berdych can't win slams. The footwork is not there. What do the greatest players have in common? Amazing footwork! Whether it be Nadal, Djokovic or Federer. Federer at 30 definitely does not have the same great footwork that he used to have in his mid 20s. That half a step makes a huge difference. He shanks far more often now because of the loss of that half a step.

 

[Benhur]

Of course Fed can still play great tennis at times because well he's the goddamn Federer. I use the term "grandpa" to purposefully exaggerate, especially when I'm answering to such appalingly dumb posts.

However giving examples of players playing great at the age of 30 beyond that happened like 50 years ago or something(when conditions, surfaces and balls, technology were very different from this utterly genious mud slow HC era) or citing Agassi who's a very special case ain't gonna convince me of anything. I've been following tennis since the early 90s and in 99% of the cases players who peaked around the age of 24-25 suffer a noticable decline in skills, both physical(wear and tear) and mental(burnout) and Fed from what I've seen(as someone who watched him play fairly regularly since 2001) is no exception, there's no doubt in my mind that a 2005/2006 version of Fed would wipe the court with 2010/2011 version of himself.

There is no need to go back 50 years, and I don’t believe that slower conditions (humoring for a moment the notion that they are a lot slower now) should be a hindrance to longevity. If anything, I might believe the exact opposite. Long term stamina does not go down appreciably at 30, and in many cases it may even increase with respect to early 20s, which is why endurance sports like marathon running and cycling often feature 30+ year old athletes doing very well. It is reaction time and reflexes that go down first, and these are much more necessary in faster conditions than in slower ones. Vilas continued playing with some success until his mid 30s, almost exclusively on clay, the slower the better. And in the early 90s you may still remember Lendl at the age of 32 beating none other than Bruguera on clay, but also occasionally beating guys like Becker, Edberg or Sampras at 30 and 31 on faster surfaces. Or Connors still playing on tour into his 40s. Or Sampras winning the USO a few months before his 31st birthday. That wasn’t 50 years ago. These are just examples I can think of right away, I am sure if you dig into tennis records you will find plenty of other examples to conclude that a 30 year old tennis player is often perfectly capable of beating younger players ranked above him.

In what sense the game is slower today is also unclear to me, considering that players are dealing with balls that come at them a lot faster than they did in, say, 1970. Would the 30 year olds today do better if the courts and the balls further enhanced the effect of the much harder hitting we see today?

Could 2011 Federer beat 2006 Federer? Not very often, but sometimes. Maybe 20-25 percent of the time. It should be clear I am not speaking of any frozen version at a particular level of play, but of any random version of a player taken on a random day in 2011 and 2006, which is how real tennis matches are played. They are not played between idealized versions of players. And that is why no sweeping conclusions can be drawn from the fact that this player at this age, on a given day, had match points or beat another player at another age, if only because this player at this age could also beat himself at another age, on a given day, as we all know.

The other notion, the one that assumes tennis spent about 100 years in paleolithic prehistory and then underwent a sudden technological transformation, coupled with a kind of mutation of human physical capabilities that changed its essence and makes it impossible for 30 year olds to remain competitive, is also something I have a hard time understanding, but that is a different topic, on a par with many other bizarre but widespread beliefs, like the belief that human beings today are vastly more intelligent than, say, 300 years ago.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Still not a lock that he'll win it. Definitely Rafa will challenge him for the W and Nole for the US open.

Federer nearly beat Djoker this year? I don't see how a MUCH BETTER version would have a hard time with him.

 

[TMF]

Federer has been pushing 30 since he was 26 according to ****s, so now that he is 30 he must already be pushing 40 now. By contrast Sampras who lost to Federer at Wimbledon at 30, and even Agassi who was losing to Federer (with mighty struggle most times) at 34 and 35 were spring chickens, in their athletic peak.

The game is more physically demanding today than it was 10 years ago. Credit to Fed for being in top shape to hang with the younger players. You forgot Sampras was a 4 time defending champion who lost to a 19 years of Fed who wasn't in his prime. That's 19 yrs old in compared to Nadal/Nole who are 25/24 respectively, and in their prime. Big difference !

 

[TMF]

Nadal wasn't even in his prime and he was beating Federer in Federer's prime.

So there's no way possible that Federer could be #1.

He won 11 titles in 2005 and never again reach this number. For him to win RG + 4MS and say he's not in his prime is strange.

So what numbers does it takes for Nadal to be consider in his prime?
winning 30 titles/year? 4 slams/year? 90-1 win/loss record?

 

[NadalAgassi]

The game is more physically demanding today than it was 10 years ago. Credit to Fed for being in top shape to hang with the younger players. You forgot Sampras was a 4 time defending champion who lost to a 19 years of Fed who wasn't in his prime. That's 19 yrs old in compared to Nadal/Nole who are 25/24 respectively, and in their prime. Big difference !

22-24 year old Federer lost 6 of 7 matches he played, including 2 of 3 hard court matches to 17-19 Nadal. Your point.

 

[tennis_pro]

There is no need to go back 50 years, and I don’t believe that slower conditions (humoring for a moment the notion that they are a lot slower now) should be a hindrance to longevity. If anything, I might believe the exact opposite. Long term stamina does not go down appreciably at 30, and in many cases it may even increase with respect to early 20s, which is why endurance sports like marathon running and cycling often feature 30+ year old athletes doing very well.

Wait till Djokovic and Nadal reach 30 and ONLY THEN tell me that they're as good as they were in their early/mid 20's.

 

[tennis_pro]

22-24 year old Federer lost 6 of 7 matches he played, including 2 of 3 hard court matches to 17-19 Nadal. Your point.

And then lost 5 out of the next 7. Why couldn't Nadal keep it up if he only got better since while Federer got worse?

 

[NadalAgassi]

And then lost 5 out of the next 7. Why couldn't Nadal keep it up if he only got better since while Federer got worse?

It is Federer fans who have said he has only gotten worse since he was 25. I havent said that (other than the obvious decline in the last couple years).

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

It is Federer fans who have said he has only gotten worse since he was 25. I havent said that (other than the obvious decline in the last couple years).

You still didn't answer why Federer won 5 of the next 7 against a 'baby' Nadal after he was being 'dominated' by Nadal according to you, who was only apparently getting better. Oh yeah I forgot, Nadal was tired LOL.

 

[Benhur]

Wait till Djokovic and Nadal reach 30 and ONLY THEN tell me that they're as good as they were in their early/mid 20's.

You must not have been paying attention to what I said. I've never even hinted that Federer is "as good" as he was 5 years ago. That would be a ludicrous statement. The only thing I've said is that he is still able, on occasion, of playing as well as he did. And I see nothing surprising in it just because he is 30. I would find it much more surprising if he were 40. How often would current Federer beat his younger version, or give his former self a very tough match? I don't know, maybe 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. What's so outlandish about it? And how does losing 75 or 80 percent of the time against someone suggest being "as good" as the other guy? If Federer retained no trace whatsoever of his former greatness, he would not be ranked number 3 in the world.

Go back and watch the first two sets of his semifinal match against Djokovic and see if you conclude it would not have been enough to challenge himself on a given day 5 years ago. On many given days in fact.

 

[NadalAgassi]

You still didn't answer why Federer won 5 of the next 7 against a 'baby' Nadal after he was being 'dominated' by Nadal according to you, who was only apparently getting better. Oh yeah I forgot, Nadal was tired LOL.

They began playing some matches indoors where Nadal pretty much sucks, so those were pretty much guaranteed wins for Federer. Fortunately for Nadal it is by far the least important surface which doesnt and never has hosted a slam event. Of course TW must worship indoors by all the love Fatbandian gets on here.

 

[NamRanger]

You must not have been paying attention to what I said. I've never even hinted that Federer is "as good" as he was 5 years ago. That would be a ludicrous statement. The only thing I've said is that he is still able, on occasion, of playing as well as he did. And I see nothing surprising in it just because he is 30. I would find it much more surprising if he were 40. How often would current Federer beat his younger version, or give his former self a very tough match? I don't know, maybe 1 in 4 or 1 in 5. What's so outlandish about it? And how does losing 75 or 80 percent of the time against someone suggest being "as good" as the other guy? If Federer retained no trace whatsoever of his former greatness, he would not be ranked number 3 in the world.

Go back and watch the first two sets of his semifinal match against Djokovic and see if you conclude it would not have been enough to challenge himself on a given day 5 years ago. On many given days in fact.

So basically you're just agreeing with what Zagor said. Yes, Federer at 30 is capable of beating good players. He's got alot of experience, a truck load of weapons still, and a little chip on his shoulder. The biggest difference between Federer at 30 and 25 is not really his level of play, but how long he can sustain that level of play. I think that's what alot of people are missing.

 

[Tammo]

IMO it would be Djokovic barely ahead of Fed by 1/100 of a point, then Nadal behind Fed by 1 point.

 

[tennis_pro]

It is Federer fans who have said he has only gotten worse since he was 25. I havent said that (other than the obvious decline in the last couple years).

Which is 100 % true. 2006 was peak Federer and he only got worse since then. In 2007 even tho he won 3 slams he experienced random losses for the first time to guys like Volandri or Canas. The last time we saw godlike Federer was AO/Dubai 07.