If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age

[Deleted member 307496]

What are you talking about Agassi was fit and motivated in 94 and 95.

It's not even about ANY of that.

It's a simple question of logic.

Fed was too old WIM14, if he was peak he would win in straights.

well then,

Agassi was too old in US04, if he was peak he would win in straights.

There's no dancing around it. Don't act like Fed wasn't playing well in WIM14 final his serve was better than ever.

The age gap between Fed and Novak is 6 years, between Agassi and Fed it's a whopping 11 years, nearly double.

There is definitely a double standard going on here and no one can weasel their way of being caught out on it.

Agassi was much closer to his prime level in 2004 than Federer was at Wimbledon 2014. His prime was between two periods; 1990-1995 (which included his peak) and 1999-2003.

Federer in comparison has had a prime from 2003-2012.. Meaning that Agassi was competing closer to his prime level than Federer from the respective periods.

Agassi also wouldn't have won in straights. No way. I doubt he'd win at all because I don't believe he was "too old" at the USO in 2004 or "too past it". He pretty much gave a prime performance, as did Federer at Wimbledon 2014 (or close to it). There's no dancing around it and I've accepted it. Now you need to accept that Agassi was/is closer to his prime than Federer was/is now.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And it is not a guarantee 2007 Nadal wins 2002 Wimbledon. Lots of serve and volleyers and Hewitt came to the net quite a bit that Wimbledon IIRC. The grass also wasn't slow as molasses like people make out either, it was as quick as 2003-2005 at least.

You can't take his match against a lesser player (also a S&V player, mind you) out of context either. He played much better in the SF and final, much like at the 2001 USO where he killed Kafelnikov and Sampras back to back.

 

[The_Order]

And it is not a guarantee 2007 Nadal wins 2002 Wimbledon. Lots of serve and volleyers and Hewitt came to the net quite a bit that Wimbledon IIRC. The grass also wasn't slow as molasses like people make out either, it was as quick as 2003-2005 at least.

You can't take his match against a lesser player (also a S&V player, mind you) out of context either. He played much better in the SF and final, much like at the 2001 USO where he killed Kafelnikov and Sampras back to back.

Oh give me a break not Hewitt's nor anyone else from that WIM02 tournament is beating Nadal in WIM07 form.

 

[The_Order]

Agassi was much closer to his prime level in 2004 than Federer was at Wimbledon 2014. His prime was between two periods; 1990-1995 (which included his peak) and 1999-2003.

Federer in comparison has had a prime from 2003-2012.. Meaning that Agassi was competing closer to his prime level than Federer from the respective periods.

Agassi also wouldn't have won in straights. No way. I doubt he'd win at all because I don't believe he was "too old" at the USO in 2004 or "too past it". He pretty much gave a prime performance, as did Federer at Wimbledon 2014 (or close to it). There's no dancing around it and I've accepted it. Now you need to accept that Agassi was/is closer to his prime than Federer was/is now.

It doesn't matter. It's not the point.

The argument is that since old Fed pushed prime Novak, peak Fed would've won easily.

It is the EXACT same argument as old Agassi pushed peak Fed, peak Andre would've won easily.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh give me a break not Hewitt's nor anyone else from that WIM02 tournament is beating Nadal in WIM07 form.

I'd say Hewitt for sure would. He was also gonna beat him in Queens in 2006 (before Rafa retired) and he was a shadow of what he was in '02 at that point anyways.

Federer had a lot more firepower than Hewitt, but he was nowhere near as quick as him. It's not even close and I think Nadal would struggle with that. Look at him against Novak and he's essentially a much better version of Hewitt.

 

[Gary Duane]

Don't act like Fed wasn't playing well in WIM14 final his serve was better than ever.

How did his return game in 2014 compare to his peak?

Answer: not even close.

The age gap between Fed and Novak is 6 years, between Agassi and Fed it's a whopping 11 years, nearly double.

That's why looking at a H2H between Fed and Agassi is almost worthless. 23 year old Fed would be playing again 34 year old Agassi.

I'm content to say that Agassi at his best was pretty frightening in the 90s. I would not want to underestimate him.

 

[Gary Duane]

Agassi was much closer to his prime level in 2004 than Federer was at Wimbledon 2014. His prime was between two periods; 1990-1995 (which included his peak) and 1999-2003.

In 2004 Agassi was 33. He was old, as Fed is now. However well he played in that year he SHOULD have played much better in his peak. But we will never know, because of all the nonsense he went through - drugs and such.

Agassi also wouldn't have won in straights. No way. I doubt he'd win at all because I don't believe he was "too old" at the USO in 2004 or "too past it". He pretty much gave a prime performance, as did Federer at Wimbledon 2014 (or close to it). There's no dancing around it and I've accepted it. Now you need to accept that Agassi was/is closer to his prime than Federer was/is now.

I don't except that at all. I only accept that Agassi in his 30s finally applied himself, so we will never know what he COULD have done earlier.

The way Agassi played in his 30s was amazing. But no one can play as well at 33 compared to 23-25 unless he didn't reach his potential earlier.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

In 2004 Agassi was 33. He was old, as Fed is now. However well he played in that year he SHOULD have played much better in his peak. But we will never know, because of all the nonsense he went through - drugs and such.

Questionable. He never did and never would have everything going his way. He was mainly a confidence player, and when that hit an all time low he was in a huge rut. When he was confident and young, he had other things going against him like motivation, hatred of the game and not wanting to please his father. When he was older and mature, he liked tennis, played at a fairly consistent level and relished a good fight against a top 1 or 2 player.

Agassi, as you're forgetting also had a downtime where he didn't play for basically a whole year and slowly built his way back into form. Realistically, in 2004 Agassi was more like a 30 or 31 year old player - not a 33 year old player. His second prime stretched from '99-'03 and I believe he won most of his majors in this time period. If this was not his prime, then what was it?

I don't except that at all. I only accept that Agassi in his 30s finally applied himself, so we will never know what he COULD have done earlier.

The way Agassi played in his 30s was amazing. But no one can play as well at 33 compared to 23-25 unless he didn't reach his potential earlier.

I believe Agassi played better in 2004 than he did in many separate years of the 90's.. besides '97 alone. Agassi was a whole different player post '99.. It was his most consistent time period (by far) and his level, although lower than his peak in '94-'95 was not that far away from it. He still made it to #1 twice between '99 and the end of '03 and I believe he seldom dropped out of the top 10 either, even compared to some of his best years of the 90's.

 

[Gary Duane]

Agassi, as you're forgetting also had a downtime where he didn't play for basically a whole year and slowly built his way back into form.

No, I had not forgotten that. But it is also true that his peak year for titles was in 1995, and that is 100% normal, because age 23-25 is when this normally happens. I'm aware of his problems. And I do not criticize him. I don't think for one minute that his adventures with crystal meth in any way helped his record, so I don't look at this the same as taking PEDs.

Realistically, in 2004 Agassi was more like a 30 or 31 year old player - not a 33 year old player.

Then why did he win only one title that year? And he was only a finalist one time. You are assuming that it is wear and tear on the body that slows people down, but I'm saying that it is age, and that it happens to everyone.

Look at it a different way: assume that around 1994 and 1995 were his peak years, first 5 titles, then 7. Then ask yourself why at that time he was not one of the greatest players who as ever lived. I think your answer will be th same as mine. It was not lack of talent, and not lack of physical ability.

His second prime stretched from '99-'03 and I believe he won most of his majors in this time period. If this was not his prime, then what was it?

Again, he was past his drug years then, and he started to grow up. He won most of his slams in the period you indicated, but he won more titles before the drugs. If he had approached tennis the same way when he was younger, also training the way he did later, then I think he might have competed with Sampras for most slams in his ear.

I believe Agassi played better in 2004 than he did in many separate years of the 90's..

I think you mean in 2002.

 

[The_Order]

I'd say Hewitt for sure would. He was also gonna beat him in Queens in 2006 (before Rafa retired) and he was a shadow of what he was in '02 at that point anyways.

Federer had a lot more firepower than Hewitt, but he was nowhere near as quick as him. It's not even close and I think Nadal would struggle with that. Look at him against Novak and he's essentially a much better version of Hewitt.

Of course you would, you're Hewitt's biggest fan on here. Reality is that peak Fed struggled in 07, Hewitt against that version of Rafa would take 1 set.

 

[Gary Duane]

Reality is that peak Fed struggled in 07, Hewitt against that version of Rafa would take 1 set.

He struggled that year at solid #1 for the year? Two slams? 8 tournament wins? In 2007?

 

[The_Order]

He struggled that year at solid #1 for the year? Two slams? 8 tournament wins? In 2007?

No, he struggled to win the Wimbledon final in 07. Fed won 3 slams in 07.

 

[kandamrgam]

If Fed was Rafa's age I have no doubt this would happen:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7257779&postcount=35

Not necessarily agreeing with you on everything you said there, but I will point out that Roger served really well for the first 4 sets in AO 09 final. He was just poor in the last set. Overall I dont know, very close to AO 04.

 

[Gary Duane]

No, he struggled to win the Wimbledon final in 07. Fed won 3 slams in 07.

Typo. 2007 was one of three years that Fed almost got a grand slam.

 

[tennis_pro]

Fed started to be good enough to win slam at age 22-23. At that age, Nadal already amassed close to 10 majors. So year 1-5 will be all Nadal and some for Djokovic with Fed 0. By year 6, it will be way too late for Fed to catch up with the other 2. Fed is a very late bloomer and he benefitted immensely from this fact, which still kept him competitive until now.


Y1: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
2: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
3: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
4: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
5: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
6: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Nadal
7: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
8: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Djokovic
Nadal: 22 Titles
Djokovic: 5 Titles
Federer: 4 Titles

Thanks for the laugh. Now in reality Nadal has 1 Australian Open which he BARELY won at the very peak of his powers, a tournament in which he should've lost to Chokedasco and then Badbackerer in the final.

And 2 US Open titles, 1 of which where he also required the absolute peak of his powers to get through a mug draw + an exhausted Djokovic in the final. And here you have Nadal winning 4-5 Calendar Slams in a row hahaha thanks for the laugh again.

 

[kandamrgam]

All good points. I will make a few points here and there.

What is your prime period for Nadal on clay? If you do 05-14 for Nadal than clearly you're going to get more opponents than from 03-10 for Federer just by virtue of a longer period.

03-10 for Federer. 07-14 for Nadal. I wrote it there, no? I hadnt counted an unequal number of years for both of them.

In 2011 I would of agreed with you and I probably still do. I'd say level of play wise and achievement wise I give Nadal the edge, but obviously Federer has had much better longevity.

Ya. Not much dissent there.

I think Hewitt should be excluded on clay, but I also think he wasn't a big factor on grass in 2008 - nor was Djokovic in 2007.

1. I did exclude Hewitt. I put a list with Hewitt in case someone wanted to know. I would have put Coria there but didnt meet Nadal at RG at all.

2. I do realise the prime factor. But that will be too detailed an inspection. Tiresome, no? I was getting a reasonable estimate. In fact prime is the major reason I dont like to put Hewitt on clay against Nadal, not necessarily Hewitt's clay game.

The way I see it their main rivals on the surface are;

Nadal: Federer and Djokovic = 8 meetings in 07-14
Federer: Nadal and Roddick = 7 meetings in 03-10

I think that's pretty much a wash personally. After that we have meetings with Hewitt and Ferrer/Soderling which end up giving Nadal the extra 'opponents'. However I'd say 2009 (Soderling) aside, Hewitt was clearly better on grass than both in 04-05. And others like Philippoussis were in great form in 2003.

I don't think there's a clear difference.

Agree.

I don't find this as compelling, unlike Nadal Federer wasn't good enough to reach Djokovic, Murray and Nadal in years like 10-11 he therefore misses out on several potential meetings. Where as even in the lone year Nadal didn't go deep at the French he lost to Soderling - which is counted. This comparison essentially a result of Nadal's greater consistency and longevity on clay.

Yup but consistency gives Nadal the edge, no?. It is because Nadal made it deeper he faced more tough opponents. I wasn't equating two eras. Merely what Federer and Nadal went through.

I dispute a few bits and pieces, I tend to think the competition is comparable. I think Nadal/Roddick is comparable to Federer/Djokovic and in terms of prime meetings the number is nearly the same.

Yes. As I said I do find it comparable not because I think Roddick is a bigger grass player than Djokovic on clay, in fact the opposite, but Roddick's performances were top notch giving tough fight for Federer. Like Soderling finds a place in these discussions even though he is not that strong a clay player overall.

I don't find a string of meetings with a player the caliber of Ferrer particularly imposing as far as competition goes. Clearly Soderling was very good on clay in 09-10, but not so much in 2011. Likewise I don't think Hewitt of 2008 on grass should be counted along side him in 04-05.

Yup Ferrer is the weakling there.

If Nadal's has been better I don't think it's by a clear margin. I personally think the best matches on grass or clay have come from Federer's challengers not Nadal's e.g. Nadal 07-08, Roddick 04,09 surpass or match any matches from Nadal's competition.

Slight disagreement here. This has got to do with how good Nadal is on clay. He is a bigger player on the surface than Federer is on his. Also grass the surface by its very nature will have tighter score line, where as winning sets on clay is harder for the lesser player. Djoker's 2008 (though I think it's slightly hyped these days), 2013, 2014, Federer 2011, Soderling 2009 are right there. Though it looks like RG 2013 was the only tough match for Nadal in recent times it isn't.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Of course you would, you're Hewitt's biggest fan on here. Reality is that peak Fed struggled in 07, Hewitt against that version of Rafa would take 1 set.

No, I think he could take 3 sets. Facing Hewitt is totally different to facing Federer. Remember, when Nadal was beating Federer he was losing to Hewitt. It was only due to Nadal evolving as a player and Hewitt declining that their matches, in hindsight, wouldn't be competitive.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, I had not forgotten that. But it is also true that his peak year for titles was in 1995, and that is 100% normal, because age 23-25 is when this normally happens. I'm aware of his problems. And I do not criticize him. I don't think for one minute that his adventures with crystal meth in any way helped his record, so I don't look at this the same as taking PEDs.

Then why did he win only one title that year? And he was only a finalist one time. You are assuming that it is wear and tear on the body that slows people down, but I'm saying that it is age, and that it happens to everyone.

Look at it a different way: assume that around 1994 and 1995 were his peak years, first 5 titles, then 7. Then ask yourself why at that time he was not one of the greatest players who as ever lived. I think your answer will be th same as mine. It was not lack of talent, and not lack of physical ability.

Again, he was past his drug years then, and he started to grow up. He won most of his slams in the period you indicated, but he won more titles before the drugs. If he had approached tennis the same way when he was younger, also training the way he did later, then I think he might have competed with Sampras for most slams in his ear.

I think you mean in 2002.

We can agree to disagree on this.

 

[TommyA8X]

Fed started to be good enough to win slam at age 22-23. At that age, Nadal already amassed close to 10 majors. So year 1-5 will be all Nadal and some for Djokovic with Fed 0. By year 6, it will be way too late for Fed to catch up with the other 2. Fed is a very late bloomer and he benefitted immensely from this fact, which still kept him competitive until now.


Y1: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
2: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
3: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
4: AUS-Nadal FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
5: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Nadal USO-Nadal
6: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Nadal
7: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
8: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Djokovic
Nadal: 22 Titles
Djokovic: 5 Titles
Federer: 4 Titles

 

[The_Order]

No, I think he could take 3 sets. Facing Hewitt is totally different to facing Federer. Remember, when Nadal was beating Federer he was losing to Hewitt. It was only due to Nadal evolving as a player and Hewitt declining that their matches, in hindsight, wouldn't be competitive.

He was barely losing to Hewitt before his game on HC matured.

His 2007 form on grass was far above anything Hewitt produced at Wimbledon.

 

[jg153040]

He was barely losing to Hewitt before his game on HC matured.

His 2007 form on grass was far above anything Hewitt produced at Wimbledon.

Ok, so what is your opinion? How many slams for all three if Nole and Rafa are born in 1981?

Also how many slams for all three if Fed is born in 1986?

Then also what about rankings? Who would be nr.1 most of the time?

 

[The_Order]

Ok, so what is your opinion? How many slams for all three if Nole and Rafa are born in 1981?

Also how many slams for all three if Fed is born in 1986?

Then also what about rankings? Who would be nr.1 most of the time?

Ok fine I'll give my opinion:

If all 3 were born in 1981 through till 2009 since we don't know Rafa's level past age 28 yet:

Nadal wins:

AO: 04, 09
RG: 00, 01, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09
WIM: 02, 03
USO: 05, 08

Currently on 15 majors

Federer wins:

AO: 07
RG:
WIM: 04, 05, 06, 07, 08 , 09
USO: 04, 06, 07

Currently on 10 majors

Novak wins:

AO: 02, 05, 06
RG:
WIM:
USO:

Currently on 3 majors. Mainly because I don't see him beating Fed at Wimbledon in 05 (which is his 2011 form) nor do i see him doing it at WIM08 (he made WIM13 final) or WIM09 but maybe he could win that one.

US Open 2005 I don't think he gets past Federer in sf and I think Nadal in 2010 form would beat Fed in US 2005 form in the final. Mainly because Federer was having a hard time with 35 year old Agassi, with a 24 year old Nadal playing at his top level at US Open, I'm picking Nadal to win that one.

So yeah, Novak would suffer the most because he'd have to deal with both peak Nadal and Federer simultaneously.

Remember this is only up until 2009 since we don't know Rafa or Novak's form past their current age.

If they were all born in 1986:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7257779&postcount=35

 

[jg153040]

Ok fine I'll give my opinion:

If all 3 were born in 1981 through till 2009 since we don't know Rafa's level past age 28 yet:

Nadal wins:

AO: 04, 09
RG: 00, 01, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09
WIM: 02, 03
USO: 05, 08

Currently on 15 majors

Federer wins:

AO: 07
RG:
WIM: 04, 05, 06, 07, 08 , 09
USO: 04, 06, 07

Currently on 10 majors

Novak wins:

AO: 02, 05, 06
RG:
WIM:
USO:

Currently on 3 majors. Mainly because I don't see him beating Fed at Wimbledon in 05 (which is his 2011 form) nor do i see him doing it at WIM08 (he made WIM13 final) or WIM09 but maybe he could win that one.

US Open 2005 I don't think he gets past Federer in sf and I think Nadal in 2010 form would beat Fed in US 2005 form in the final. Mainly because Federer was having a hard time with 35 year old Agassi, with a 24 year old Nadal playing at his top level at US Open, I'm picking Nadal to win that one.

So yeah, Novak would suffer the most because he'd have to deal with both peak Nadal and Federer simultaneously.

Remember this is only up until 2009 since we don't know Rafa or Novak's form past their current age.

If they were all born in 1986:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7257779&postcount=35

Fair enough. Although if all in 81 I see Fed coming on top just due to his consistency and health. At least he would have most weeks nr.1.

Then in 86, it's another story. Surfaces don't favor Fed that much. So, he would win less than in 81. I don't see him maybe winning most slams. But he would be there. Maybe Rafa 10, Fed 9, Nole 9. Although, I still think he would be nr.1 for most of the time. I mean only Nole and Rafa are troubling him in this slow era.

I guess we will see how Rafa and Nole will decline. In that case Fed mops up when they decline, so things wouldn't change as much.

That is of course if we assume everything stays the same and don't account for evolution.

But, if we account for evolution. Meaning that they would not play the same. Meaning Fed not raising the bar and Nole and Rafa wouldn't be as skilled. The same in 86, Fed being a different player cuz 6 more years of evolution.

If we assume winning is problem solving and that in any era champions would come on top, no matter what. Adapt and doing anything they can to win.

 

[xFedal]

Federer 2004-7 would've won against any incarnation of Djokovic or Nadal in any hard court major, specially in the US Open (if we used the court speeds of that timespan).

its more tougher for Nadal to beat Federer at Grass than Hard, Nadal never struggled to defeat fed on outside hard, plus it will best of 5 and nads doesn't look much of them. Especially against fed just 2 wins for him lucky wins too.

 

[Krish872007]

its more tougher for Nadal to beat Federer at Grass than Hard, Nadal never struggled to defeat fed on outside hard, plus it will best of 5 and nads doesn't look much of them. Especially against fed just 2 wins for him lucky wins too.

Which 2 wins are you referring to? The 2 outdoor hard wins? I wouldn't call them lucky - well, maybe the first one was. He played poorly in Miami and was being hit off the court by Nadal (who was playing quite well), but eventually got it together and reversed proceedings. Also one of the few occasions where he has managed to outlast Nadal.
The second victory was a routine straight sets win, certainly nothing lucky about it. He made good use of the conditions and executed his plan superbly.

The unfortunate thing for Roger is that he has not quite managed to do this at the Australian Open (i.e. slam level). He had many, many chances in the 2009 Final - Nadal won all the big points. Even after playing well to win the 4th set, he played a poor 5th set. In 2012 SF there was a chance. Led by a break in each of the first 3 sets - won the first set in a tiebreak, lost the next two. I actually felt beforehand (and when he initially broke and held for 3-0) he was playing well enough to beat Rafa there, but Rafa played an outstanding match (and an outstanding tournament). 2014 SF - no real chance, wasn't expected to do much at this stage in his career straight off the back of 2013, Rafa played his best match of the tournament.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He was barely losing to Hewitt before his game on HC matured.

His 2007 form on grass was far above anything Hewitt produced at Wimbledon.

Grass is different to HC though and in my opinion, Hewitt was better on grass than on HC especially in 2002. And Rafa nearly beat Hewitt at the AO (which he only made one final at) and Montreal which isn't a tournament of huge importance to Hewitt either..

Like I said, Hewitt was going to beat 2006 Rafa at Queens after he had already lost a lot of his trademark speed and his powerful playing style from 2005 had turned back into what he showed from 2000-2003..

So I mean sure, Rafa was playing better in 2007 compared to 2006 but Hewitt was playing way better in 2002 compared to 2006.. The difference is much larger in my opinion.

I think Rafa could take the hypothetical match between them (he'd certainly have many chances) but I don't think it would be any less than 5 sets (not due to playing level, obviously Federer is way above Hewitt in that and he was taken to 5 by Nadal) but due to a different match-up. Hewitt had an exceptional backhand and a less exceptional forehand, Federer was the opposite so he would not have the same forehand to backhand advantage and Hewitt, even in a rut, was not giving up against anybody not named Federer.

 

[xFedal]

Which 2 wins are you referring to? The 2 outdoor hard wins? I wouldn't call them lucky - well, maybe the first one was. He played poorly in Miami and was being hit off the court by Nadal (who was playing quite well), but eventually got it together and reversed proceedings. Also one of the few occasions where he has managed to outlast Nadal.
The second victory was a routine straight sets win, certainly nothing lucky about it. He made good use of the conditions and executed his plan superbly.

The unfortunate thing for Roger is that he has not quite managed to do this at the Australian Open (i.e. slam level). He had many, many chances in the 2009 Final - Nadal won all the big points. Even after playing well to win the 4th set, he played a poor 5th set. In 2012 SF there was a chance. Led by a break in each of the first 3 sets - won the first set in a tiebreak, lost the next two. I actually felt beforehand (and when he initially broke and held for 3-0) he was playing well enough to beat Rafa there, but Rafa played an outstanding match (and an outstanding tournament). 2014 SF - no real chance, wasn't expected to do much at this stage in his career straight off the back of 2013, Rafa played his best match of the tournament.

Am sure the only 5 set victory fed had over nads was miami 2005 nads was 2 points away from victory and was very close, Second their next 5 set match was on grass 2007 wimby final nadal could have won that too, had it been for the worst schedule ever Nads was playing his 2nd round match while Fed had finished the quarter final and then nads failed to take his chances in the 5th set just like AO12, these 2 defeats were all nads fault for not taking his chances.

 

[Gary Duane]

We can agree to disagree on this.

That's a pretty curt dismissal of everything I said.

I will remind you that you said:

I believe Agassi played better in 2004 than he did in many separate years of the 90's.. besides '97 alone.

In 2004: ATP Masters Series Cincinnati

That's it, his only win.

Stockholm was his only final.

2004 was a horribly weak year. I suggested that you meant 2002 or maybe 2003, which were good years.

Do we disagree on that?

 

[addictedtotopspin]

If all of them were born in 1981 and playing till 2014 where they would have 33 years old i would go with this stuff.
I will also take some facts like these;
-Rafa started early winning GS-es, needed till 22-23 to get better on HC and Grass.But last 3 years would not be so good, 1 or 2 GS-es maybe.Worser than Novak and Rogers
-Roger on the other hand won his first GS with 22 years old but is capable winning slams with 33 (with this scenario he would face 33 years old Novak at this year WB and probably win)
-Novak started winning GS-es with 22 but had 2 empity years like he did (2009,10)
-All of them became pros with 17 years old = 1998
In that period of time till now we have 17 years which means 17 WBs,17AO,17RG and 17USO = 68 GS es.

Rafa would win 19 (11 RG,3 US,3 AO,2 WB)
Roger would go with 18 (8 WB,5 US,3 AO,2 RG)
Novak would win 12 (5 AO,3 WB,2 RG,2 US)

That is 49 slams.There would still be place for Aggasi and Sampras to win smthing in start of 2000(they maybe would have 1 or 2 GS-es less) but Ivanisevic,Kurten,Ferrero,Rodick,Gaudio,Johanson,Costa would stay without GS-es.Maybe Kurten with 1 RG actualy.
Hewit and Safin would get 1 each. Im not sure in exact numbers about their GS-es but i think it could go something like this.

Rafa would dominate RG starting with 2000.His best result at WB,AO,and US would became somewhere beetween 2005-2009.In that period of time he would go with almost all of his non clay slams.After 2009 he would go with 1 non clay slam and maybe 2 RGs.
Roger would start with WB wins at 2003.Since Novak and Rafa should have 1 WB more than now that means Roger would go with some wins after 2011.With 30-31 or 33 years old he should win some of them cus Nole and Rafa would be same age.
His HC slams would start also from 2003, including few in period 2005-2009, and few after 2009.I also think that he and Nole could get 2 RGs each in years when Rafa slips away and in those years after 30.I said 17 years are in that period(1998-2014), 11 Rafa,4 Novak and Roger makes 5.Two of them would go probably to Kurten or someone else in years 1998 and 1999.Those 15 RGs starting from 2000 to 2014 like i said would be 11,2,2.
Since i dont see true champion right now (out of top 3) i think that Nole and Fed, including few Rafaels wins, could dominate tour with 30-33 years old.So each of them should have enough room to get those numbers i wrote up there.There also should be some place for Delpo and Murray.

If someone writes exact years of each players wins and adds something for Sampras,Aggasi,Hewit and Safin in start of 2000 and something for Murray and Delpo in start of 2010 i think it all could actualy fit nicely.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That's a pretty curt dismissal of everything I said.

I will remind you that you said:

In 2004: ATP Masters Series Cincinnati

That's it, his only win.

Stockholm was his only final.

2004 was a horribly weak year. I suggested that you meant 2002 or maybe 2003, which were good years.

Do we disagree on that?

He was still a firm top 10 player in 2004 and he won a Masters title. Obviously it isn't as good as 2002 or 2003 because by 2004 his back started affecting him and his playing level started to become slightly more sporadic. He still gave enough good performances throughout 2004 to stay ranked within the top 10; and in any era that demands consistency and dedication.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I also firmly believe that Agassi had 2 primes, 1990-1995 and 1999-2003. In my opinion, 2002 and most of 2003 are apart of his prime years.

 

[kandamrgam]

Some legendary posts here.

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)

This.

Federer is 5 years older than Nadal and 6 over Djokovic.

I don't think 27-29 are "prime" years but I'll play the game.

Y1: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Djokovic
2: AUS-Federer FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
3: AUS-Federer FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
4: AUS-Federer FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
5: AUS-Djokovic FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
6: AUS-Federer FRA-Nadal WMB-Federer USO-Federer
7: AUS-Federer FRA-Federer WMB-Federer USO-Federer
8: AUS-Federer FRA-Federer WMB-Federer USO-Djokovic


Federer: 22 Titles
Nadal: 6 Titles
Djokovic: 4 Titles


Sorry to disappoint but the only reason Nadal and Djokovic have been able to compete with Federer is because of his advanced age. It's like Edberg taking on Lendl or McEnroe against Connors.

Now we're not factoring in guys like Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, etc who would take some titles from Federer, probably leaving him with 18-20. However Federer would be near unbeatable outside of clay as he was. I base this off his performance against Nadal and Djokovic in his later years.

I give Federer the French years 7-8 where he'd be 28-29 as in those years he did well against a prime Djokovic and Nadal. I'm not counting this year's French in Nadal's 28 age so I'm looking ahead at the next two years and I can't see him being near as impenetrable as 06-10. Remember Federer took out Djokovic in 2011 and Nadal was pushed to 9-7 in the fifth set of 2013 semifinal with Novak.


I'd sure like to mix this scenario up by having Safin, Hewitt (healthy), Nalbandian (healthy), Roddick, Del Potro (healthy) and Robin Söderling (healthy).

And this.

This is the real number.

Federer 20
Nadal 4
Djokovic 4

They would stop Federer a bit less. But Federer would stop them more, plus guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin would be the same age as Nole and would stop Rafa and Nole more.

Blake and Nalbandian and Davy had leading h2h vs Rafa. Roddick and Safin have a leading h2h vs Djokovic.

So, Rafa and Nole would be stopped more by Fed's era, Roddick for example knocking down Rafa and Nole, but then Fed would own him in finals. So, Fed would play more finals vs Safin, Roddick, not so many vs Djoko and Rafa.

Plus surfaces in Fed's era were much more polarized and favor Rafa's and Nole's style less.

Also, Rafa is declining faster, especially on grass. And is skipping a lot of tournaments. So, peak Fed would be able to capitalize on that, because today he is too old to take advantage of that.

Also, would stop old Fed when Rafa and Nole would be declining along with him? He now has to play peak versions of them.

And this.

Federer 5 + 1 + 7 + 6 = 19
Nadal 1 + 7 + 1 + 1 = 10
Djokovic 2 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 3

Djokovic can't beat Nadal in majors now, when he has the advantage, so why would he be doing it without the advantage?

As for Federer, I'd be surprised if Djokovic did much better against Federer than Hewitt did to be honest.

It took the absolute peak level of a freak of nature, Nadal, probably the second best player in history, with an immense match-up advantage, to beat prime Federer 9-7 in the fifth set at Wimbledon, in the greatest match ever played.

As Nadal and Federer would obviously be the Top 2 seeds for almost the whole time, for Djokovic to get a Wimbledon title, he would have to go through Federer, which isn't happening (like, ever) if we weight it for age.

And Nadal would probably beat him there too.

And this.



These basically sum it. Such keen observation and exquisite tennis acumen. After all when Federer managed only 17 Slams barely going through Nadal and Djokovic, it's much more probable he will win more if their peaks coincided

 

[The_Order]

Some legendary posts here.


These basically sum it. Such keen observation and exquisite tennis acumen. After all when Federer managed only 17 Slams barely going through Nadal and Djokovic, it's much more probable he will win more if their peaks coincided

It's Federer fan logic in a nutshell. Delusional crap.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Some legendary posts here.

These basically sum it. Such keen observation and exquisite tennis acumen. After all when Federer managed only 17 Slams barely going through Nadal and Djokovic, it's much more probable he will win more if their peaks coincided

Thx for the compliment! :twisted:

 

[NatF]

These basically sum it. Such keen observation and exquisite tennis acumen. After all when Federer managed only 17 Slams barely going through Nadal and Djokovic, it's much more probable he will win more if their peaks coincided

All depends on how Nadal/Djokovic age. I could easily say Nadal has won 5 slams off clay barely going through Federer and Djokovic, chances are he will win less under the new conditions (as will Federer and Djokovic). They'd all suffer, though who the most in the long term won't be clear until Djokodal is 33.

03-10 for Federer. 07-14 for Nadal. I wrote it there, no? I hadnt counted an unequal number of years for both of them.

Yes I saw that once I scrolled down.

1. I did exclude Hewitt. I put a list with Hewitt in case someone wanted to know. I would have put Coria there but didnt meet Nadal at RG at all.

2. I do realise the prime factor. But that will be too detailed an inspection. Tiresome, no? I was getting a reasonable estimate. In fact prime is the major reason I dont like to put Hewitt on clay against Nadal, not necessarily Hewitt's clay game.

Prime is important though in this discussion. Otherwise Nadal's list is a bit inflated IMO. Obviously that brings more subjectivity into the discussion.

Agree.

I'm glad we agree on this. I don't mind agreeing to disagree if there's only a small distance in our opinions.

Yup but consistency gives Nadal the edge, no?. It is because Nadal made it deeper he faced more tough opponents. I wasn't equating two eras. Merely what Federer and Nadal went through.

It's stating the obvious, Nadal faced more tough opponents because he made it deeper more often. It's more a statement of Nadal's ability on clay compared to Federer's on grass than it is of their competition.

If Federer made the finals in 10-11 he would of faced Nadal twice more (5 times total) and added another meeting with Djokovic. I think competition should be compared mostly when the player makes the final/deep or when stopped by a particularly talented/hot player.

Berdych and especially Tsonga were both playing at a level above anything Ferrer has showed at the FO when they beat Federer IMO. Yet neither is counted.

Comparing their 9 runs to the final might be better.

Yes. As I said I do find it comparable not because I think Roddick is a bigger grass player than Djokovic on clay, in fact the opposite, but Roddick's performances were top notch giving tough fight for Federer. Like Soderling finds a place in these discussions even though he is not that strong a clay player overall.

I think we agree here for the most part. Soderling's performance at times in 09-10 was crazy.

Yup Ferrer is the weakling there.

Indeed he is...

Slight disagreement here. This has got to do with how good Nadal is on clay. He is a bigger player on the surface than Federer is on his. Also grass the surface by its very nature will have tighter score line, where as winning sets on clay is harder for the lesser player. Djoker's 2008 (though I think it's slightly hyped these days), 2013, 2014, Federer 2011, Soderling 2009 are right there. Though it looks like RG 2013 was the only tough match for Nadal in recent times it isn't.

Depends on the year, I don't think every year for Nadal on clay is clearly better than any year for Federer on grass. I agree mostly with the matches you list though I would definitely exclude 2014, it wasn't great quality IMO.

 

[kandamrgam]

All depends on how Nadal/Djokovic age. I could easily say Nadal has won 5 slams off clay barely going through Federer and Djokovic, chances are he will win less under the new conditions (as will Federer and Djokovic). They'd all suffer, though who the most in the long term won't be clear until Djokodal is 33.

1. I did see that, but Nadal is indeed going through Djoker. And his Slam count reflects that. Now it becomes Nadal vs Federer in which case I know who will suffer more. Hence my point. If Nadal went through Fedovic I know he will suffer, but he has gone through half of it already, so in effect he is only gaining.

2. The criterion here is prime years - ie 21-29 years. Though we gotta wait, not like 5 more years.

It's stating the obvious, Nadal faced more tough opponents because he made it deeper more often. It's more a statement of Nadal's ability on clay compared to Federer's on grass than it is of their competition.

I will rephrase it like this: "it's more a statement of what Nadal went through than the actual competition of the times". Which is indeed what I was testing. To take an extreme example, I dont think it is fair to say Del Potro faced more competition at the US Open than Murray since when former won he faced two ATGs which Murray didnt have to. Indeed Murray's consistency helped him face tougher rivals all throughout.

Berdych and especially Tsonga were both playing at a level above anything Ferrer has showed at the FO when they beat Federer IMO. Yet neither is counted.

I have something to tell here. It's really hard to see such streaky performances on clay compared to grass. I can count more upsets and 5 setters on grass than clay. Ferrer's performances will invariably suffer in this area. I thought his 2014 was great against Nadal before giving up finally. But I agree generally. There is nothing really to add Ferrer there.

Depends on the year, I don't think every year for Nadal on clay is clearly better than any year for Federer on grass.

I didnt mean it. Comparable.

I agree mostly with the matches you list though I would definitely exclude 2014, it wasn't great quality IMO.

As I said I didnt go to such extreme depths of inspection. But I disagree on this. Djoker played reasonably well by his standards. He was serving good, not too erratic etc. He might have given up a set, at most. Definitely better than Roddick's 2005 WC. I think let's hope for law of averages to catch up and leave out such microscopic inspection into details

 

[Chico]

Some legendary posts here.



This.



And this.



And this.



And this.



These basically sum it. Such keen observation and exquisite tennis acumen. After all when Federer managed only 17 Slams barely going through Nadal and Djokovic, it's much more probable he will win more if their peaks coincided

Agreed. It is really laughable to think Djokovic and Nadal would take less slams off Federer than much lesser and less skilled and capable players like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, ...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Agreed. It is really laughable to think Djokovic and Nadal would take less slams off Federer than much lesser and less skilled and capable players like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, ...

Yep, Hewitt is "much less skilled" or capable when compared to Djokovic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-mHe3OxsM

In the twilight of his career he nearly beat prime Djokovic on grass, and you think he wouldn't beat him at the peak of his powers in '05 when he was monster hitting the ball from the baseline? Come on now.

I'd say Safin would have a great shot at taking down Djokovic on fast surfaces too. As would Roddick, ironically. For sure Djokovic would beat all of them more often than not, but they would have their glory days.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

People talk about Djokovic's return like it's gospel, but Hewitt had a great return at his best also. Hewitt, Murray and Djokovic all seem to have a great return (obviously Djokovic is better, but all 3 lead the pack IMO).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxEyNRczzgs

Look at 2:36 in this video for example.

 

[kandamrgam]

Yep, Hewitt is "much less skilled" or capable when compared to Djokovic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-mHe3OxsM

In the twilight of his career he nearly beat prime Djokovic on grass, and you think he wouldn't beat him at the peak of his powers in '05 when he was monster hitting the ball from the baseline? Come on now.

I'd say Safin would have a great shot at taking down Djokovic on fast surfaces too. As would Roddick, ironically. For sure Djokovic would beat all of them more often than not, but they would have their glory days.

All fair enough. But Chico's original point stands. I hope you didnt mean it to "counter" his argument.

Btw at the peak of his powers in '05, Hewitt was great in Slams. Otherwise won just 1 title.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

All fair enough. But Chico's original point stands. I hope you didnt mean it to "counter" his argument.

Btw at the peak of his powers in '05, Hewitt was great in Slams. Otherwise won just 1 title.

No, I was just countering the "argument" that Djokovic is ungodly more skilled than Hewitt, which is complete rubbish. He is better than him and he would beat Federer more often than he did, but I don't see him winning too much off a peak Federer. Old man Federer leads the H2H with Djokovic this year (I presume prime Djokovic?) and that says it all to me.

Also, the only one title for Hewitt in '05 was because he cut his schedule down and was also injured for huge spaces of the year. When he did play though, his level was immense. His 2005 level of play is better than his 2004 level of play in my opinion, even though in 2004 he won more titles.

 

[coloskier]

If Nadal was the same age Fed is now, Nadal would have already retired......

 

[The_Order]

No, I was just countering the "argument" that Djokovic is ungodly more skilled than Hewitt, which is complete rubbish. He is better than him and he would beat Federer more often than he did, but I don't see him winning too much off a peak Federer. Old man Federer leads the H2H with Djokovic this year (I presume prime Djokovic?) and that says it all to me.

Also, the only one title for Hewitt in '05 was because he cut his schedule down and was also injured for huge spaces of the year. When he did play though, his level was immense. His 2005 level of play is better than his 2004 level of play in my opinion, even though in 2004 he won more titles.

That's because he pulled out of the WTF match and Novak was injured in MC.

Novak also won the most important match they played this year.

Fed's level has definitely dropped from his peak, but it's nowhere near as much as Fed fans like to make it out to be. Only last year was there a huge difference in his performances, the rest of the seasons though, it's only been a slight drop in level of play.

So it's not inconceivable that Fed gets his wins against Novak. Just like old man Agassi pushing 11 years younger peak Federer at Flushing Meadows. Even in 2005 he was giving him a run for his money until the fatigue from all those previous 5 setters and the back pain settled in.

 

[kandamrgam]

No, I was just countering the "argument" that Djokovic is ungodly more skilled than Hewitt, which is complete rubbish. He is better than him and he would beat Federer more often than he did, but I don't see him winning too much off a peak Federer. Old man Federer leads the H2H with Djokovic this year (I presume prime Djokovic?) and that says it all to me.

Also, the only one title for Hewitt in '05 was because he cut his schedule down and was also injured for huge spaces of the year. When he did play though, his level was immense. His 2005 level of play is better than his 2004 level of play in my opinion, even though in 2004 he won more titles.

1. Chico said Djoker is much more skilled. Which is true. How can one prove by what degree? That's subjective.

2. Yes. That's what he said. Chico's original quote:

Agreed. It is really laughable to think Djokovic and Nadal would take less slams off Federer than much lesser and less skilled and capable players like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, ...

In fact he is saying exactly what you said.

3. Chico didnt say that. To say Djokovic would win more than Hewitt did against Federer doesnt mean Djokovic is robbing too much off Federer.

As I said, while I agree with you, you're not countering Chico because he didnt make that opinion in the first place. May be he really believes that but I dont know.

4. Hewitt entered 11 tournaments that year. That is 7 non-Slams. Won one. Peak Hewitt in 2004 won 4. I will not underestimate the guy but just want to say his records look more like Murray's but still not as good.

 

[Djokovic2011]

So it's not inconceivable that Fed gets his wins against Novak. Just like old man Agassi pushing 11 years younger peak Federer at Flushing Meadows. Even in 2005 he was giving him a run for his money until the fatigue from all those previous 5 setters and the back pain settled in.

Lol, didn't you just intimate in another thread that Novak should be ashamed to still be losing to Federer these days T_O and now you're saying something completely different? :?

I can't keep up with you at times mate!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That's because he pulled out of the WTF match and Novak was injured in MC.

Novak also won the most important match they played this year.

Fed's level has definitely dropped from his peak, but it's nowhere near as much as Fed fans like to make it out to be. Only last year was there a huge difference in his performances, the rest of the seasons though, it's only been a slight drop in level of play.

So it's not inconceivable that Fed gets his wins against Novak. Just like old man Agassi pushing 11 years younger peak Federer at Flushing Meadows. Even in 2005 he was giving him a run for his money until the fatigue from all those previous 5 setters and the back pain settled in.

He still leads the H2H with Djokovic this year. I really thought Djokovic would beat him in Dubai but he didn't. I also thought Federer would win Wimbledon and he didn't. So taking away from that I have come to the conclusion that Djokovic would stand more of a chance against Federer on all surfaces when compared to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin, but that he'd lose to him more often than not. It's like comparing Hewitt, Roddick and Safin with Djokovic. The difference between Djokovic and Federer is just simply that great.

Agassi would also have his chances against Federer on his best day, but I think he'd also lose to him more often than not.

 

[kandamrgam]

He still leads the H2H with Djokovic this year. I really thought Djokovic would beat him in Dubai but he didn't. I also thought Federer would win Wimbledon and he didn't. So taking away from that I have come to the conclusion that Djokovic would stand more of a chance against Federer on all surfaces when compared to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin, but that he'd lose to him more often than not. It's like comparing Hewitt, Roddick and Safin with Djokovic. The difference between Djokovic and Federer is just simply that great.

Agassi would also have his chances against Federer on his best day, but I think he'd also lose to him more often than not.

Good point. I dont know why is it so hard for some people to get it.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1. Arguable. Chico said Djoker is much more skilled. Which is true.

2. Yes. That's what he said. Chico's original quote:



In fact he is saying exactly what you said.

3. Chico didnt say that either. To say Djokovic would win more than Hewitt did against Federer doesnt mean Djokovic is robbing too much off Federer.

As I said, while I agree with you, you're not countering Chico because he didnt make that opinion in the first place. May be he really believes that but I dont know.

4. Hewitt entered 11 tournaments that year. That is 7 non-Slams. Won one. Peak Hewitt in 2004 won 4. I will not underestimate the guy but just want to say his records look more like Murray's but still not as good.

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.

 

[Sirius Black]

I think that the gist of this notion is that players peak at different times, with two players rarely, if ever, meeting at both of their peaks. A peak Federer will beat a non-peak Nadal or Djokovic. The reverse is also true.

By peak I don't mean a period of high level, like Roger's 2004-2007 or Djokovic's 2011. What I mean is when the player is playing at an unusually high level - for example, Federer at the WTF in 2011 against Nadal.

 

[kandamrgam]

That's because he pulled out of the WTF match and Novak was injured in MC.

Novak also won the most important match they played this year.

Fed's level has definitely dropped from his peak, but it's nowhere near as much as Fed fans like to make it out to be. Only last year was there a huge difference in his performances, the rest of the seasons though, it's only been a slight drop in level of play.

So it's not inconceivable that Fed gets his wins against Novak. Just like old man Agassi pushing 11 years younger peak Federer at Flushing Meadows. Even in 2005 he was giving him a run for his money until the fatigue from all those previous 5 setters and the back pain settled in.

Federer's level did drop by so much!! The biggest difference being his bread and butter shot, FH. The consistency, power and depth have all went downhill. Not to mention the movement.

I often think why is it hard for people to understand the difference between "level" and "success". Success comes to you because you're a good player. Sometimes the drop in level is still good enough to win matches more than others. Nadal's level in 2005-2007 was nothing outstanding given how much Nadal improved from there. Yet he will have all the success to show off for that period.

If Federer wins against Djoker today then it is to Federer's credit. If he losses, it's not to his discredit.