If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age

[kandamrgam]

Rafa did not beat Federer from 2004-2008 Wimb at non clay majors.

1. Rafa beat Rogi in Wimbledon 2008. As of today it's one of the most talked about match. Dont forget next time.

2. And the relevance? The question here is about "same age performance". They are separated by 5 years for your 2004-08 to make any relevance. Do you know how 2007-2008 Rafa will fare against 2003-2004 Rogi? That's the question.

 

[Gary Duane]

Rafa did not beat Federer from 2004-2008 Wimb at non clay majors.

You must be kidding. What about Wimbledon 2008?

 

[torpantennis]

You must be kidding. What about Wimbledon 2008?

Green clay.

 

[kandamrgam]

No. Are you?

6-4, 7-5, 6-4.

Listen. I raised two points initially. You replied to one and wasn't convincing for me. I raised 5 points then. You reply to one. Again not convincing.

So does beating Djokovic once in straights justifies your generalized "crushing" statement? Despite possessing 2-4 losing record? In that case remember 6-4, 6-2, 6-3? What a headcase who believes h2h decides by how much a player is better.

I think you belong to the league of tennisaddict, D.Nalby12, jg12345, Dire Wolf, TMF !

 

[addictedtotopspin]

I hate when I see posts like, Rafa won 2008 wb cus Rog had mono before or at 2009 AO final Roger was out of his prime.

Im not saying he didint have mono but no chanse that he could play a year with 2 finals and 1 GS title if that mono did any serious damage to his body.
No chanse he could play that good match on WB 2008 final.IF he didint play it good he would lose 3:0 or 3:1.We saw back 2007 when Fed was playing his apsolute best that Rafa took him 2 sets.And 2008 wasnt far (atleast WB final) but Rafa just was better and prepeared to finaly win it.

Or at 2009 AO open final.Roger played on of his best seasons that year.Two slams including channel slam (RG and WB) and 2 finals more....declining ha? hahah

There si 5 years difference but im sure Rafa would win in 90% clay and 60% outdoor HC (even more if its on best of 5) and atleast half of matches at grass against same age Roger, only if they play with 22 years each, or more, cus that is period when Rafa was good on all surfaces, like Roger too ofc.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Listen. I raised two points initially. You replied to one and wasn't convincing for me. I raised 5 points then. You reply to one. Again not convincing.

So does beating Djokovic once in straights justifies your generalized "crushing" statement? Despite possessing 2-4 losing record? In that case remember 6-4, 6-2, 6-3? What a headcase who believes h2h decides by how much a player is better.

I think you belong to the league of tennisaddict, D.Nalby12, jg12345, Dire Wolf, TMF !

Yes, because we should take a match where Murray was playing super bad as an example.

When did I say anything about H2H, kiddo? I said Murray beat Djokovic in 2 of the most important meetings between them.

I think you belong on my Ignore List. You also don't appreciate "good tennis"; you appreciate Nadal and his rivals. That's it.

 

[kandamrgam]

Yes, because we should take a match where Murray was playing super bad as an example.

When did I say anything about H2H, kiddo? I said Murray beat Djokovic in 2 of the most important meetings between them.

I think you belong on my Ignore List. You also don't appreciate "good tennis"; you appreciate Nadal and his rivals. That's it.

1. Why are UO and WC bigger moments than the two finals they played at AO?

2. Wait. I dont mind going back to expose you. Seems you somewhere lost the chain of comments.

Your first comment:

Yeah and in the Masters 1000 final he made he was up against peak Federer. And in a couple of the other tournaments (especially towards the end of the year) he was playing well below par. After his surgery in October '05, he just sucked (much like Nadal did this year in the indoor season).

I don't believe Djokovic is "much more skilled" than Hewitt. I don't believe he's "much more skilled" than Murray either. He is more skilled than both of them but it's not by a huge stretch to say the least. You'd have to compare Hewitt and Murray with someone like Nadal or Federer for that to be true.

My reply to it.

?????? Djoker and Murray are playing the same competition!! They are born apart by a week. 7 > 2, 4 > 0, 20 > 9, 120 weeks > 0. That was one insane comment. What is your definition for skill?

Djokovic didnt need a weaker field to win Slams. He was beating in prime Nadal, Murray and past his prime Federer. Murray needed that lucky break of Nadal's absence to win. No comparison.

Now I raise two points. One, the competition Djokovic went through to achieve what he has. Two, the complete domination of stats Djokovic over Murray. Now get this straight - I am using the collective achievement of both and not h2h to show Djokovic is much better.

Now see your reply to that:

Murray has still beaten Djokovic in the big moments. Namely Wimbledon 2013. For there to be such a vast differential in skill, he would need to punish Murray during these times instead of getting crushed by him.

That's what I call kiddish. Murray went through just Nole. Nole went through Murray, Nadal and Federer to win Slams. How much more should I dumb it down to you? Can Murray do that kid? If he can't then why is not Djokovic just much better? If Djoker can be year end no.1 for 3 years, and Murray not even whiffing past no.1 ever, what does that prove of their caliber?

And look at your generalized comment? For Djoker to be vastly better than Murray, Djoker should have won every match and that too by punishing? So I reckon Federer isnt vastly superior to Djoker after all he got crushed in AO 08. Dont ask me for logic, I just call it their most important match :/

See how you're playing the h2h card?

 

[The_Order]

And look at your generalized comment? For Djoker to be vastly better than Murray, Djoker should have won every match and that too by punishing? So I reckon Federer isnt vastly superior to Djoker after all he got crushed in AO 08. Dont ask me for logic, I just call it their most important match :/

See how you're playing the h2h card?

He always plays the h2h card with 1 match that suits his agenda.

Roddick beat Murray in WIM09. There's your proof Roddick is better. But Roddick lost to Murray in 06 WIM.

Hewitt beating Nadal in Queens 06 means Hewitt in 02 would've beat Nadal in WIM07 final form. What a joke he'd be lucky to take a set off Nadal playing at that level. Hewitt nearly lost to Sjeng Shalken and really played no one to win WIM02. Henman wasn't that good and Nalbandian was still a kid too, fluking his way to the final.

 

[BGod]

AO(Plexicushion)- Djokovic (4), Federer (4)
RG- Nadal (7), Federer (1)
Wimby- Federer (8)
USO- Federer (6), Djokovic (2)

Federer: 19
Nadal: 8
Djokovic: 6

I've always been of the opinion that had Djokovic and Nadal not been a factor as the next generation, Federer would have certainly won a few more titles. Fortunately for him he got 2 extra Slams in 09 with Nadal's absence.

However same age it's no contest as we have seen how effective Nadal has been past age 25 and what Novak did in his prime.

Now looking at that and how Federer has continued to play in his 30s, I'd give him another 5 titles somewhere there for 24 total.

 

[RF6777]

I would at least give Federer 2 French Opens..
2007 Fed would beat 2012 Nadal/2012 Djokovic for sure...
2011 Fed would beat 2015 Nadal/2015 Djokovic..
2009 Federer would beat 2014 Djokovic..

 

[Novak And The Net.]

Faker wins sweet F all slams. What a world it would be.

 

[gn]

AO(Plexicushion)- Djokovic (4), Federer (4)
RG- Nadal (7), Federer (1)
Wimby- Federer (8)
USO- Federer (6), Djokovic (2)

Federer: 19
Nadal: 8
Djokovic: 6

I've always been of the opinion that had Djokovic and Nadal not been a factor as the next generation, Federer would have certainly won a few more titles. Fortunately for him he got 2 extra Slams in 09 with Nadal's absence.

However same age it's no contest as we have seen how effective Nadal has been past age 25 and what Novak did in his prime.

Now looking at that and how Federer has continued to play in his 30s, I'd give him another 5 titles somewhere there for 24 total.

Another thing is Nadal would have not won outside FO anyway. As for Fed, he could have lost almost all the early encounters with Nadal given how Nadal played in early years. But Fed did not peak until 22. So they hardly could have faced each other. Then Fed must have dominated him in later stages everywhere except on Clay. The rivalry between Fed and Novak would be more or less equal. I would 60-40 in Fed's favor. Then again we are yet to how Novak plays in later years. So I won't be a surprise if it is 70-30 in Fed's favor. One might say he would not have won 17 Titles. Then again 33/34 year Fed could have easily defeated 33/34 year old Novak. So Fed will probably catch up in later years had he lost few HC titles to Novak.

 

[SublimeTennis]

If Fed was the same age , then he is not losing that many matches on hard court to Novak and Rafa. May be 1, max 2 to Novak. Zilch on grass.

I would go with

Fed - 6 + 1 + 7 + 5 ( 19)
Nadal - 0 + 7 + 1+ 1 (9)
Djokovic - 2 + 0 + 0 +2 (4)

I agree with this assessment most, Fed and Nadal in their primes were tennis machines.

 

[BGod]

Another thing is Nadal would have not won outside FO anyway. As for Fed, he could have lost almost all the early encounters with Nadal given how Nadal played in early years. But Fed did not peak until 22. So they hardly could have faced each other. Then Fed must have dominated him in later stages everywhere except on Clay. The rivalry between Fed and Novak would be more or less equal. I would 60-40 in Fed's favor. Then again we are yet to how Novak plays in later years. So I won't be a surprise if it is 70-30 in Fed's favor. One might say he would not have won 17 Titles. Then again 33/34 year Fed could have easily defeated 33/34 year old Novak. So Fed will probably catch up in later years had he lost few HC titles to Novak.

Yeah the OP states ages 21-29.

Age 19-21 I give Nadal an advantage on hard. Federer was really volatile in those years.

 

[Sunny014]

Sampras, Federer, Djokovic and Tsitsipas are from 4 different generations of physical primes.

This means in every decade there are a set of athletes who are best suited to win that decade, the athletes from the prev decade or from the other after that cannot be expected to win a lot.....

1990s - Guys born between 1967-1972 were best suited to win, among these guys (Andre, Pete, Goran, Stitch, Krajicek etc etc) it was Pete who was best suited to win and so won most slams.
2000s - Guys born between 1977-1982 were best suited to win, among them (Safin, Roddick, Federer, Hewitt, Nalbandian) it was Federer who was best suited and so won most slams (15).
2010s - Guys born between 1987-1992 were best suited to win, among them it was Novak who won the most Slams (15)..... Nadal born 1 yr before this group and also being a Teenage prodigy he peaked early (physically) and started winning the french nd other slams early on so a part of him fell in the 00s too.
2020s - Guys born between 1997-2002 are best suited to win, TsiTsipas, Zverev, Medvedev, Felix, Sinner etc etc ...

What everyone needs to note is that, 1990s teens all turned pro in the late 90s and those courts were low bounce and superfast, then they adapted their games after 01 as the courts were relaid, compared to this the 2000s teens all turned pro by the mid 00s and till then they got like 5+ years of their teenage years to play on the modern day high bounce courts where rallies are longer, so they developed the muscle fibers for this before they turned pro. Thats why when Andy, Novak and co turned pro the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts all started to fade away and Federer himself lost his invincibility.


Now, If Federer was born in 1987 (same year as Djokovic, Murray) then the person who suffers the most from all this would be Djokovic.
Nadal would still will all his French Opens but Novak's non clay slams would mostly be taken by Federer. Reason why we have a Big 3 instead of a Big 2 (Federer+Nadal) is because Federer can be tired out by Djokovic by taking the match to 5 sets and then somehow pulling off a win and making Federer look weak mentally, however if they were of the same age then those 5 setters would all be 3-4 setters with Federer winning. Plus Federer would be hitting harder than what he does now, his backhand also might be better equipped (might be a double hander) and he also might be using a bigger raquet early on, playing teenage Nadal would not be very good on but then he would adapt sooner and once he did, Nadal would be toast. Remember Federer before 03 used to lose to Safin, Hewitt and many guys, same as Novak losing to Nadal before 2011, but once these athletes reached their peak they were unbeatable for anyone in their age group.

So we now have a Big 3 because Federer is from the 00s and the other 2 guys are primarily from the 2010s, but if Fed also in the 2010s group then Novak suffers a lot.

Slam counts (over a 12 year period - say 2008-2019) would be.

Aus Open - Federer 6/7, Djokovic 6/5, everyone else 0..... thats right.... I dont think both of them can be beaten back to back.
French Open - Nadal 12-13 (he starts winning from 05 itself), Djokovic/Federer winning those 1-2 slams in that year when Nadal misses due to the law of averages... probably Stan can also get a win? ...
Wimbledon - Federer 9, Djokovic 1, Nadal 2 (2008 and possible in 07 as well) ...
US Open - Federer 5, Djokovic 3/4, Nadal 2 (those 2 easy USOs from 2017 would vanish from his tally) (This would be the closest fought slam between the 3 guys)

So total ....

Federer - 20-21 Slams
Nadal - 16-17 Slams
Djokovic 11-12 Slams

Stan and Murray would be on 0 or 1, even Del Potro might take that 1 09 USO ... Murray can beat Novak on Grass but can't beat Fed, Stan can beat Novak but not Federer, on clay Nadal cannot be beaten by anyone from any era, so that leaves them all with 0 Slams, hell Murray even if he was in the 00s his slam count would have been close to 0, I dont see Federer allowing him to win any slam and even Safin at his best wouldn't allow Murray to win.

 

[clayqueen]

If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age

They are not. end of.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Alright, if it was Novak, Nadal and Federer in their primes at the same time (ie. they are the same age) then they would all take slams from each other. Novak would reign over AO, Nadal over RG, Fed over Wimby and all would fight at the USO, IMO.

Everyone acts like Fed would never beat Nadal at a slam if they were the same age but Prime/peak Federer has chances against anyone and Nadal only won Wimby twice and has gotten worse so he would have like a 5 year window but Federer and Novak would give him stiff competition there. RG, of course Nadal would win all of them most likely.

AO, Djokovic would be very very hard to beat and maybe Fed or Nadal would win one or two after Djoko declined a bit. USO: Fed is the best hard court player maybe ever and he would have a chance to beat Rafa here in his prime as well as Novak so probably Fed wins the most here.

So lets say if these 3 played at the same age for a prime of 8 years. age:21-29 then the results would be IMO:

AO(Plexicushion)- Djokovic (5), Federer (2), Nadal (1)
RG- Nadal (8 ) maybe Federer or Novak win one if Nadal has a weird loss
Wimby- Federer (6), Nadal(1), Djokovic (1)
USO-Federer (4), Djokovic (2), Nadal(2)

So total slams would be: Federer(12), Nadal(12), Djokovic (8 ). I think that these numbers are reasonable and shows that Fedal are better players than Djoko and that Fed would still have great chances to win double digits slams with two of the greatest players against him.

Do you guys find these numbers realistic and reasonable? If not post your own numbers that you think Fed, Nadal and Djokovic would have won at the same age for a span of 8 years in their primes.

this reeks of a post trying to satisfy prevailing notions that Fedal were >>>Nole, notions which are being slowly but surely dispelled.

I think with the data since 2014, particularly of Wimbledon finals, we can reasonably conclude something more along the lines of:

AO: Djokvoic - 6, The Nadal - 1, Fed - 1
RG: Rafa -7, Nole -1 Fed - 0
Wimbledon: Fed: 3, Djokovic: 2, Rafa: 2 Unknown/Murray: 1
Open: Nole: 3 Rafa: 3 Fed: 2

Tallies:
The Nadal: 13
Nole: 12
Fed: 6
Murray: 1

 

[Sunny014]

this reeks of a post trying to satisfy prevailing notions that Fedal were >>>Nole, notions which are being slowly but surely dispelled.

I think with the data since 2014, particularly of Wimbledon finals, we can reasonably conclude something more along the lines of:

AO: Djokvoic - 6, The Nadal - 1, Fed - 1
RG: Rafa -7, Nole -1 Fed - 0
Wimbledon: Fed: 3, Djokovic: 2, Rafa: 2 Unknown/Murray: 1
Open: Nole: 3 Rafa: 3 Fed: 2

Tallies:
The Nadal: 13
Nole: 12
Fed: 6
Murray: 1

Nole cannot even beat 31 year old Federer of 2012 on Grass, how can you take his wins over a 33-38 year old Federer seriously ? 2 of those were in 5 sets...... Federer has won 8 wimbledons and reached 11 wimbledon finals for a reason, give that guy the same age group and he would bury everyone else on Grass.

Same with Aus Open..... Plexicushion .... Novak started playing on in 08 at age 20-21, Federer started playing on it at age 26-27, despite this Fed won it like 3 times compared to Novak's 7-8 times, put them both at age 20 and Federer would take more of those wins and remember Federer gets injured the least, the guy even in his bad years played at a very high level. Thats how he took the French Open....... he lost to Nadal fromn 05-08 - 4 years but the law of averages eventually delivered a soderling to stop Nadal's streak and Federer was there still playing at a level good enough to beat Soderling.

6 slams for Federer is absurd, he would win at least 7 wimbledons in a 10 year period, every year he would make the semis and probably the finals too.

Remember the federer whom you saw facing Djodal was also 5-6 years older to them, reverse the age and then see .... ?

Does a Djokovic of 2018 (aged 31) stand a chance against a Federer of 2006 (aged 25) ? Since we are reversing the age gap and make federer younger by 6 years to Djodal, see how it ends up ????

Fedal is the greatest player outside Clay and Nadal is by far the greatest on clay.