If Nadal, Federer and Djokovic were all born in 1986...

[rografnovand]

They'd all be 35

 

[mike danny]

I really see no reason to assume Djokovic is going to beat Federer anywhere in particular if they are both the same age. Federer likely isn't winning anything in 2018, that would be the equivalent of 2013. Why would Novak win Roland Garros in 2015, would being a year older help him against Stan?? Not sure Federer gets 2016, I'd probably swap those around. The 2016 conditions were tailor made for Djokovic.

2013 Fed would still win 2018 AO.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Ned barely won his only AO and you're telling me in this what if reality he would've bagged 2? ATGs (lol) like Ferrerray took him down there, but a younger Fed would've been steamrolled? Hmm, ok.

lol Federer was never the reason Rafa failed in Australia as you very well know, and if by some happenstance you don't, a quick Google search of "3-1" should tell you everything you need to know

 

[PilotPete]

lol Federer was never the reason Rafa failed in Australia as you very well know, and if by some happenstance you don't, a quick Google search of "3-1" should tell you everything you need to know

The reason Rafa failed at AO in 2017 was because of Federer.

 

[blablavla]

The reason Rafa failed at AO in 2017 was because of Federer.

hint.
how many matches he lost to Novak?

 

[RS]

Nadal fan eye test.

 

[metsman]

2013 Fed would still win 2018 AO.

Yeah, 2013 Fed would have struggled against 14 Cilic but I think by 18 CIlic was a bit slower and 13 Fed could probably beat him without a ton of headache if he was fresh (which is should be). See no reason not to favor 2013 Fed over 2020 Tim either.

I think 13 Fed was a bit physically sturdy than the 14, 16, 17, 18 years which is why his level really dipped off after 2 tough matches. But he definitely wasn't much worse as a pure player than those years I don't think. Anyways, with the pre finals draw in 18, that's not gonna be remotely a problem.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, 2013 Fed would have struggled against 14 Cilic but I think by 18 CIlic was a bit slower and 13 Fed could probably beat him without a ton of headache if he was fresh (which is should be). See no reason not to favor 2013 Fed over 2020 Tim either.

I think 13 Fed was a bit physically sturdy than the 14, 16, 17, 18 years which is why his level really dipped off after 2 tough matches. But he definitely wasn't much worse as a pure player than those years I don't think. Anyways, with the pre finals draw in 18, that's not gonna be remotely a problem.

I'm only giving 2013 Fed the 2018 AO win, not getting into other years and other players.

But if 2013 Murray barely beat that Fed, yeah, I certainly don't see Thiem getting past that Federer easily either.

 

[metsman]

I'm only giving 2013 Fed the 2018 AO win, not getting into other years and other players.

But if 2013 Murray barely beat that Fed, yeah, I certainly don't see Thiem getting past that Federer easily either.

I wouldn't say that 2013 Murray barely won as he easily won his 3 sets. But yeah, not a flattering look for Sir Andeh in one of his career best matches if he still allows a garbage Fed to vulture 2 sets. And people pretend he'd beat 2006 Fed ROTFLMAO.

 

[mike danny]

I wouldn't say that 2013 Murray barely won as he easily won his 3 sets. But yeah, not a flattering look for Sir Andeh in one of his career best matches if he still allows a garbage Fed to vulture 2 sets. And people pretend he'd beat 2006 Fed ROTFLMAO.

Yeah, I used to think he'd beat 2006 AO Fed, but I think it would be mostly 50/50 since 2006 AO Fed was still better than 2013 AO Fed.

And if Murray lets 2006erer off the hook, 2006erer makes him pay since he'd have more energy for a 5th set.

 

[NatF]

Yeah, I used to think he'd beat 2006 AO Fed, but I think it would be mostly 50/50 since 2006 AO Fed was still better than 2013 AO Fed.

And if Murray lets 2006erer off the hook, 2006erer makes him pay since he'd have more energy for a 5th set.

Question is more if 2006'erer let's Murray off the hook than the other way around. Federer was erratic in 2006 but he was still able to take his game to places Murray couldn't follow.

 

[metsman]

Yeah, I used to think he'd beat 2006 AO Fed, but I think it would be mostly 50/50 since 2006 AO Fed was still better than 2013 AO Fed.

And if Murray lets 2006erer off the hook, 2006erer makes him pay since he'd have more energy for a 5th set.

Would not be 50/50. We know 2006 Fed has the peak level to wipe out Murray for 1 if not 2 sets. On top of that, if Murray is letting 13 Fed vulture sets, he'd lose 1-2 close sets to 06 Fed too.

Furthermore, Davydenko and Baggy style players (sweet early ball strikers and aggressive returners) are much worse matchups for 2006 Fed than Murray who would give Fed much more time and opportunity to dictate play and not stretch his footwork and lateral movement. 2013 Murray served much better and is a tougher retriever, that's the only point in his favor, but 06 Fed wouldn't struggle nearly as much with those things. 06 Fed in 4 or 5 sets all day.

Keep in mind that best ever Murry at AO beat worst Fed in 2013 meanwhile like 8th or 9th best Fed at AO beat worst Murray significantly easier in 2014 (would have been a straight set wipeout if old man didn't forget where he was for 10 minutes). The raw gap in level between them is just humungous. 2013 Fed of just the round before against Tsonga would have had a fighting chance vs Murray, but his serving and movement level dipped after that match so he was a sitting duck and never had a shot. 2006 Fed is vastly better than 13 AO Fed in every single area besides serve (but 13 AO SF Fed served like garbage anyways).

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

The Nadal devoteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

 

[mike danny]

Question is more if 2006'erer let's Murray off the hook than the other way around. Federer was erratic in 2006 but he was still able to take his game to places Murray couldn't follow.

Would not be 50/50. We know 2006 Fed has the peak level to wipe out Murray for 1 if not 2 sets. On top of that, if Murray is letting 13 Fed vulture sets, he'd lose 1-2 close sets to 06 Fed too.

Furthermore, Davydenko and Baggy style players (sweet early ball strikers and aggressive returners) are much worse matchups for 2006 Fed than Murray who would give Fed much more time and opportunity to dictate play and not stretch his footwork and lateral movement. 2013 Murray served much better and is a tougher retriever, that's the only point in his favor, but 06 Fed wouldn't struggle nearly as much with those things. 06 Fed in 4 or 5 sets all day.

Keep in mind that best ever Murry at AO beat worst Fed in 2013 meanwhile like 8th or 9th best Fed at AO beat worst Murray significantly easier in 2014 (would have been a straight set wipeout if old man didn't forget where he was for 10 minutes). The raw gap in level between them is just humungous. 2013 Fed of just the round before against Tsonga would have had a fighting chance vs Murray, but his serving and movement level dipped after that match so he was a sitting duck and never had a shot. 2006 Fed is vastly better than 13 AO Fed in every single area besides serve (but 13 AO SF Fed served like garbage anyways).

Yeah, fair enough.

I guess 2013 AO Murray would have a good shot against 2008 AO Fed who was probably more erratic than 2006 AO Fed.

 

[ibbi]

Okay, I'm really bored so I'm playing this game...

2005 (so this is essentially Djokovic from 2006 and Federer from 2000? If my math is not letting me down)
Nadal - 1
Djokovic - 0
Federer - 0

2006 (ND07, RF01)
I figure it's either Ancic or maybe even Gasquet in the Wimbledon final. Whoever it is, unlikely Nadal loses.
Nadal - 3
Djokovic - 0
Federer - 0

2007 (ND08, RF02)
Well, Novak likely gives a budding young Roger a lesson in Australia. Pretty sure he'd beat Gonzo too. Rafa an easy pick for Wimbledon over probably Ferrero. Got to be Novak in New York.
Nadal - 5
Djokovic - 2
Federer - 0

2008 (ND09, RF03)
Australia is interesting... I'm thinking it might be a Berdych-Tsonga final? Wimbledon final would be REALLY interesting. Gotta be Novak over Andy in New York.
Nadal - 6
Djokovic - 3
Federer - 1

2009 (ND10, RF04)
This is an imperious Roger, but not sure he can hit through Nadal on this court in Australia? Though a younger Roger could probably exploit Rafa's tiredness far better considering how close this one came... I'm thinking it's Delpo in Paris, Roger for sure in London, and he's likely taking that US Open final too.
Nadal - 6
Djokovic - 3
Federer - 4

2010 (ND11, RF05)
I'm thinking it has to be Novak in Australia. Wimbledon I'm saying Roger over Rafa, New York I like Roger to take that semi final and then the only question is what happens in the final... Now Roland Garros... 2011 Djokovic is not losing to Melzer, and then... What happens in the semi final? Roger is likely making the final.
Nadal - 8
Djokovic - 4
Federer - 5

2011 (ND12, RF06)
Australia is obviously Novak, I think 2006 Rog would like his chances in the RG final considering how well the 11 version did, but... Hmm. Wimbledon for me is Roger over Rafa again, maybe in 5. New York... Roger wins that semi final, and then the final is a close one.
Nadal - 10
Djokovic - 5
Federer - 6

2012 (ND13, RF07)
Now how does the Federer-Nadal semi go when this is peak Oz Roger, but on this molasses slow court? I think Rafa edges him. Novak probably still gets the final. Roland Garros and Wimbledon as is. Federer in New York.
Nadal - 11
Djokovic - 6
Federer - 8

2013 (ND14, RF08)
Well... I'm not sure 2014 Novak wins the 2013 Stan match in Australia, not sure Mono Fed beats Lendl's Andy, so it's probably an Andy-Stan final, and then what? Rafa in Paris, Roger in Wimbledon (the wait goes on), Rafa still takes New York.
Nadal - 13
Djokovic - 6
Federer - 9

2014 (ND15, RF09)
Novak in Australia, edges Stan. I think Rafa still takes out Roger in the semi. The Wimbledon final would be MUCH more interesting. I'm thinking Novak might edge it as he could get on to 09 Roger's serve the way that Roddick could not) be a much better match than their actual 14 final. US Open... Almost surely a Roger-Novak final, and it's another tough call, but I'd go with Novak still because if Delpo could take that Fed, then can't discount Djokovic.
Nadal - 14
Djokovic - 9
Federer - 9

2015 (ND16, RF10)
Well... It's Roger in the Australia final, not Andy... And then what? I know everyone here is convinced Novak was unplayable in 2016 in the semi, but 2010 Roger is a lot better, so... Maybe Novak still edges it, but it'd be close as hell. Still thinking Stan in Paris. Sir Andy probably takes Wimbledon here, but it's got to be Roger in New York.
Nadal - 14
Djokovic - 10
Federer - 10

2016 (ND17, RF11)
Roger takes Australia, he doesn't get hurt running a bath, so he's likely winning Roland Garros too considering what it took to stop 2011 Roger, and that was on a rainy day too just like this whole tournament was, he's almost certainly winning Wimbledon considering how close he came hurt at 34, and then... I mean Stan has a mental block against him so he probably wins all 4, right? Who's stopping him at that joke of a major in New York that year?
Nadal - 14
Djokovic - 10
Federer - 14

2017 (ND18, RF12)
Now the Australia final really would be interesting... Roger hasn't taken half a year off to perfect the neo-backhand, right? That could be offset by the fact he's not as old as he was in the actual 2017 final, so... He probably still wins. Rafa in Paris, Roger is taking out Novak in the Wimbledon semi final, no doubt. US Open is interesting as it's likely coming down to Novak and Rafa. I'm giving Novak the edge as he took out Delpo in straights in 2018, while Rafa dropped a set to him in 2017.
Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 11
Federer - 16

2018 (ND19, RF13)
Australia is certainly Djokovic, Roland Garros is certainly Nadal, Wimbledon... 2019 Novak was not as good as 2018... I think Rafa finishes him under the roof, yo... Not sure what the hell happens in New York. It's got to be Del Potro.
Nadal - 17
Djokovic - 12
Federer - 16

2019 (ND20, RF14)
Australia is another interesting one... Novak still gonna roll to that final, but 2014 Fed probably beats Tsitsipas, and how does he match up with Nadal? Probably still going with Novak, not sure 2019 Nadal had it in him to keep up physically the way Thiem was able to against AO20 Djok, Federer maaaaybe could, but I'm not sure he beats Nadal. Rafa in Paris, Roger in London, still probably Rafa in New York.
Nadal - 19
Djokovic - 13
Federer - 17

2020 (ND2020, I guess. RF15)
Still going to be Novak in Australia, still going to be Rafa in Paris, but Federer is likely SABRing any of those other punks in New York.
Nadal - 20
Djokovic - 14
Federer - 18

Rafa - 0AO, 13RG, 3W, 4UO
Novak - 9AO, 0RG, 1W, 4UO
Roger - 3AO, 1RG, 9W, 5UO

To me the only really, really close ones I could go either way on are 2011 US Open (maybe 2010 too, but less so) and 2018 Wimbledon.

 

[mike danny]

Okay, I'm really bored so I'm playing this game...

2005 (so this is essentially Djokovic from 2006 and Federer from 2000? If my math is not letting me down)
Nadal - 1
Djokovic - 0
Federer - 0

2006 (ND07, RF01)
I figure it's either Ancic or maybe even Gasquet in the Wimbledon final. Whoever it is, unlikely Nadal loses.
Nadal - 3
Djokovic - 0
Federer - 0

2007 (ND08, RF02)
Well, Novak likely gives a budding young Roger a lesson in Australia. Pretty sure he'd beat Gonzo too. Rafa an easy pick for Wimbledon over probably Ferrero. Got to be Novak in New York.
Nadal - 5
Djokovic - 2
Federer - 0

2008 (ND09, RF03)
Australia is interesting... I'm thinking it might be a Berdych-Tsonga final? Wimbledon final would be REALLY interesting. Gotta be Novak over Andy in New York.
Nadal - 6
Djokovic - 3
Federer - 1

2009 (ND10, RF04)
This is an imperious Roger, but not sure he can hit through Nadal on this court in Australia? Though a younger Roger could probably exploit Rafa's tiredness far better considering how close this one came... I'm thinking it's Delpo in Paris, Roger for sure in London, and he's likely taking that US Open final too.
Nadal - 6
Djokovic - 3
Federer - 4

2010 (ND11, RF05)
I'm thinking it has to be Novak in Australia. Wimbledon I'm saying Roger over Rafa, New York I like Roger to take that semi final and then the only question is what happens in the final... Now Roland Garros... 2011 Djokovic is not losing to Melzer, and then... What happens in the semi final? Roger is likely making the final.
Nadal - 8
Djokovic - 4
Federer - 5

2011 (ND12, RF06)
Australia is obviously Novak, I think 2006 Rog would like his chances in the RG final considering how well the 11 version did, but... Hmm. Wimbledon for me is Roger over Rafa again, maybe in 5. New York... Roger wins that semi final, and then the final is a close one.
Nadal - 10
Djokovic - 5
Federer - 6

2012 (ND13, RF07)
Now how does the Federer-Nadal semi go when this is peak Oz Roger, but on this molasses slow court? I think Rafa edges him. Novak probably still gets the final. Roland Garros and Wimbledon as is. Federer in New York.
Nadal - 11
Djokovic - 6
Federer - 8

2013 (ND14, RF08)
Well... I'm not sure 2014 Novak wins the 2013 Stan match in Australia, not sure Mono Fed beats Lendl's Andy, so it's probably an Andy-Stan final, and then what? Rafa in Paris, Roger in Wimbledon (the wait goes on), Rafa still takes New York.
Nadal - 13
Djokovic - 6
Federer - 9

2014 (ND15, RF09)
Novak in Australia, edges Stan. I think Rafa still takes out Roger in the semi. The Wimbledon final would be MUCH more interesting. I'm thinking Novak might edge it as he could get on to 09 Roger's serve the way that Roddick could not) be a much better match than their actual 14 final. US Open... Almost surely a Roger-Novak final, and it's another tough call, but I'd go with Novak still because if Delpo could take that Fed, then can't discount Djokovic.
Nadal - 14
Djokovic - 9
Federer - 9

2015 (ND16, RF10)
Well... It's Roger in the Australia final, not Andy... And then what? I know everyone here is convinced Novak was unplayable in 2016 in the semi, but 2010 Roger is a lot better, so... Maybe Novak still edges it, but it'd be close as hell. Still thinking Stan in Paris. Sir Andy probably takes Wimbledon here, but it's got to be Roger in New York.
Nadal - 14
Djokovic - 10
Federer - 10

2016 (ND17, RF11)
Roger takes Australia, he doesn't get hurt running a bath, so he's likely winning Roland Garros too considering what it took to stop 2011 Roger, and that was on a rainy day too just like this whole tournament was, he's almost certainly winning Wimbledon considering how close he came hurt at 24, and then... I mean Stan has a mental block against him so he probably wins all 4, right? Who's stopping him at that joke of a major in New York that year?
Nadal - 14
Djokovic - 10
Federer - 14

2017 (ND18, RF12)
Now the Australia final really would be interesting... Roger hasn't taken half a year off to perfect the neo-backhand, right? That could be offset by the fact he's not as old as he was in the actual 2017 final, so... He probably still wins. Rafa in Paris, Roger is taking out Novak in the Wimbledon semi final, no doubt. US Open is interesting as it's likely coming down to Novak and Rafa. I'm giving Novak the edge as he took out Delpo in straights in 2018, while Rafa dropped a set to him in 2017.
Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 11
Federer - 16

2018 (ND19, RF13)
Australia is certainly Djokovic, Roland Garros is certainly Nadal, Wimbledon... 2019 Novak was not as good as 2018... I think Rafa finishes him under the roof, yo... Not sure what the hell happens in New York. It's got to be Del Potro.
Nadal - 17
Djokovic - 12
Federer - 16

2019 (ND20, RF14)
Australia is another interesting one... Novak still gonna roll to that final, but 2014 Fed probably beats Tsitsipas, and how does he match up with Nadal? Probably still going with Novak, not sure 2019 Nadal had it in him to keep up physically the way Thiem was able to against AO20 Djok, Federer maaaaybe could, but I'm not sure he beats Nadal. Rafa in Paris, Roger in London, still probably Rafa in New York.
Nadal - 19
Djokovic - 13
Federer - 17

2020 (ND2020, I guess. RF15)
Still going to be Novak in Australia, still going to be Rafa in Paris, but Federer is likely SABRing any of those other punks in New York.
Nadal - 20
Djokovic - 14
Federer - 18

Rafa - 0AO, 13RG, 3W, 4UO
Novak - 9AO, 0RG, 1W, 4UO
Roger - 3AO, 1RG, 9W, 5UO

To me the only really, really close ones I could go either way on are 2011 US Open (maybe 2010 too, but less so) and 2018 Wimbledon.

Agree overall with the exception of 2009 Fed losing to 2014 Rafa at the AO. Rafa was so much better in 2009 and Fed still came close to winning. 2014 Rafa wasn't that good. I think 2009 Fed takes him in 4. Rafa could have been down 1-2 in sets to Dimitrov anyway.

 

[ibbi]

Agree overall with the exception of 2009 Fed losing to 2014 Rafa at the AO. Rafa was so much better in 2009 and Fed still came close to winning. 2014 Rafa wasn't that good. I think 2009 Fed takes him in 4. Rafa could have been down 1-2 in sets to Dimitrov anyway.

Yeah, you’re probably right. Definitely didn’t put much thought into that one as the winner is losing the final regardless

 

[InsideOut900]

Agree overall with the exception of 2009 Fed losing to 2014 Rafa at the AO. Rafa was so much better in 2009 and Fed still came close to winning. 2014 Rafa wasn't that good. I think 2009 Fed takes him in 4. Rafa could have been down 1-2 in sets to Dimitrov anyway.

He has 2007 AO Fed losing to 2012 AO Nadal and 2006 USO Fed losing to 2011 USO Nadal. Had to pause for a moment there.

Nadal would get the best deal out of it because Djoko/Fed would kill each other for HC Slams, while he keeps on winning RG.

Also @ibbi do you seriously see Nadal scoring 3/3 vs Fed at USO? 10 beats 05 Fed, 11 beats 06 Fed and 13 beats 08 Fed?

I give him 1 out of 3(likely 2010 exposes Fed's 2005 BH) + 2019 win, so 2 USO titles.

2016 Djoker gets 1 RG, but likely not 9 AO. He would lose 1 to Rog(2007 or 2009), but 2014 Djoker would win it if he doesn't bump into Stan early (assuming draw changes).

17 or 18 Rafa, roughly(could lose one out of 2006 to Ancic or 2018 to Novak)
14 Novak.
21 Roger.

 

[ibbi]

He has 2007 AO Fed losing to 2012 AO Nadal and 2006 USO Fed losing to 2011 USO Nadal. Had to pause for a moment there.

Nadal would get the best deal out of it because Djoko/Fed would kill each other for HC Slams, while he keeps on winning RG.

Also @ibbi do you seriously see Nadal scoring 3/3 vs Fed at USO? 10 beats 05 Fed, 11 beats 06 Fed and 13 beats 08 Fed?

I give him 1 out of 3(likely 2010 exposes Fed's 2005 BH) + 2019 win, so 2 USO titles.

2016 Djoker gets 1 RG, but likely not 9 AO. He would lose 1 to Rog(2007 or 2009), but 2014 Djoker would win it if he doesn't bump into Stan early (assuming draw changes).

17 or 18 Rafa, roughly(could lose one out of 2006 to Ancic or 2018 to Novak)
14 Novak.
21 Roger.

I think Rafa is likely getting the best of Roger on most outdoor hard courts during his best years, yes. The courts are not quick, bounce is pretty high, from Miami 2005 to Australia 2014 whether he won or lost he bullied the Federer backhand for almost 10 years in best of 5 on that surface. Like I said, the 2011 US Open (I don’t think 2010 is that close because an ancient Agassi gave Federer’s 2005 backhand hell, and while 2012 AO probably goes 5 considering the actual match went 4 with 2 breakers, I still like Nadal for it because 2007 Federer was all about the attack and I don’t see how you’re going to launch much of one on that court) was maybe the one I was least sure of, but I tend to lean Nadal more often than not in that rivalry in those conditions.

Though now you bring it up I tend to think Roger 2010 might have a pretty good chance against Stan at RG15 given the mental dominance, so that could certainly come down to a Federer-Djokovic final.

 

[metsman]

Yeah, fair enough.

I guess 2013 AO Murray would have a good shot against 2008 AO Fed who was probably more erratic than 2006 AO Fed.

Yeah he may but even then I am struggling to see how 08 AO SF Fed isn't far superior to 13 AO SF Fed at everything. I definitely have less faith in 08 Fed than 06 in tight spots though, that's for sure.

 

[ibbi]

Also @InsideOut900 2013 Nadal over 08 Fed too, for sure! Look what hell Andreev gave Federer, and he was basically just a right handed Nadal. Even Sir Andy gave the backhand a decent working over for a good while there, it’s just the forehand was so good it didn’t matter.

 

[InsideOut900]

I think Rafa is likely getting the best of Roger on most outdoor hard courts during his best years, yes. The courts are not quick, bounce is pretty high, from Miami 2005 to Australia 2014 whether he won or lost he bullied the Federer backhand for almost 10 years in best of 5 on that surface. Like I said, the 2011 US Open (I don’t think 2010 is that close because an ancient Agassi gave Federer’s 2005 backhand hell, and while 2012 AO probably goes 5 considering the actual match went 4 with 2 breakers, I still like Nadal for it because 2007 Federer was all about the attack and I don’t see how you’re going to launch much of one on that court) was maybe the one I was least sure of, but I tend to lean Nadal more often than not in that rivalry in those conditions.

Though now you bring it up I tend to think Roger 2010 might have a pretty good chance against Stan at RG15 given the mental dominance, so that could certainly come down to a Federer-Djokovic final.

I think 2016 Djoker could take on Stan heads on. He was desperate to win that year, unlike 2015 where he succumbed to pressure. But it's anyone's guess here.

As for 2013 USO Nadal beating 2008 USO Fed, no grounds for it, really.

Not only Nadal's form at USO 13 is overrated, but Federer was is top notch form at USO 08 in the SF + F. Should I bring their Cinci match in 2013?
Nadal had far more of a form advantage at Wimb 08 compared to what he would have in uso13 vs uso08 and still barely won Wimb 08.

I am actually considering him to take out 2005 Fed as a better possibility here. 2010 USO Nadal was a different beast honestly.

 

[Gary Duane]

If they were born in 86 then Roger never comes up playing with an 85 and later 90 inch racket, and thus doesn't suffer the same fate against Nadal that actually played out.

Yup. Roger born later would have been trained differently. He would have struggled like crazy against a young Nadal the same age because Nadal was such a prodigy. Likely it would be Nadal crushing both Fed and Novak early on, gaining a ton of confidence. But now Nadal is in the driver's seat and can be complacent. Novak still has to solve Nadal - nothing much different there - but Fed knows from the get-go that there are some holes in his game, the same ones he tried to fill starting around 2014. It's very likely he becomes a much more complete player, and he's using a larger racket. He's got a more aggressive game. I have no idea how the slam count would develop, but it sure would be interesting to watch.

Some of our members are very unimaginative. If you want to create fantasy with a huge change, then you have to reasonably change everything.

 

[Gary Duane]

The biggest assumption that is made in hypotheticals like these is that the Big 3 are able to teleport forwards or backwards in time and bring the respective forms they actually displayed in each year into hypothetical matches against each other. This is a bit different to simply pitting "Nadal 2012 vs. Djokovic 2015" or something along those lines - we are fundamentally redefining the career trajectories of the 3 most impactful players of the 21st Century.

- Very important that the year is specified (in this case 1986), as it does make a difference to how we speculate. A scenario of all three being born in 1981 could be wildly different to all three being born in 1986 - particularly since all other players are held constant in their respective playing periods. This is a case of Federer and Djokovic adjusting to match Nadal's "timeline". Maybe we try and assess each player in turn.

- Starting with Nadal: this is a timeline where he potentially develops without Federer as a dominant #1. No doubts on his early career success on clay but what about other surfaces here? What is driving him to improve? Where does he go?

- Federer: probably impacted the most but in a very unpredictable way. How does he grow up? Would he still have started off as an emotional headcase? Or would he have sorted his head and fitness earlier than he did and become a ATG at an earlier stage? Or would he not sort himself out at all? What about rivals - is there any mental baggage against Nadal or anyone else? Or does he simply grow up playing a different way, with a different approach? Maybe he develops into a complete baseline specialist, who knows. Depends on whether he is a "first-mover" or "second mover" and when / how he can take advantage.

- Djokovic: only 1 year removed from Nadal's default timeline, so maybe he develops a little bit quicker. But what about his true "breakout" year? Does it happen in 2010? Does it not happen at all? I would assume at some point the gluten intolerance issue gets sorted out - but what would be the dynamics with the other two? Is it a rivalry with only Nadal, or both Fedal, or only Federer? Or someone else entirely?

- The Field: a real unknown quantity, determined ultimately by whoever out of the Big 3 develops first and is able to dominate, and where. Slams wins could be spread out amongst several different competitors, for instance.

This is very similar to what I was thinking. Speculating here is like writing an alternate history book, where Germany doesn't lose WWII, or Kennedy is not assassinated, or the South wins our Civil War.

 

[msc886]

Nadal and Djokovic beats Federer by grinding him out. They need the age advantage and being younger and fitter.
Without that, they wouldn’t have as much success against Federer.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I really see no reason to assume Djokovic is going to beat Federer anywhere in particular if they are both the same age. Federer likely isn't winning anything in 2018, that would be the equivalent of 2013. Why would Novak win Roland Garros in 2015, would being a year older help him against Stan?? Not sure Federer gets 2016, I'd probably swap those around. The 2016 conditions were tailor made for Djokovic.

I would give the following AO's to Djokovic over Federer:

• AO 2010 (2011 Djoker v 2006 Fed)
• AO 2011 (2012 Djoker v 2007 Fed)
• AO 2015 (2016 Djoker v 2010 Fed)
• WC 2010 (2011 Doker v 2005 Fed)
• WC 2014 (2015 Djoker v 2009 Fed)
• WC 2017 (2018 Djoker v 2012 Fed)
• USO 2010 (2011 Djoker v 2005 Fed)

These would all be tight matches though and there were plenty that went Fed's way too, especially at Wimbledon as you would expect.
With regards to Fed in 2016 I had him snatching it because of no Nadal to contend with and the 2017 version of Djokovic not being competitive enough. You could be right on that and on 2015 RG for Djokovic though.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Ned barely won his only AO and you're telling me in this what if reality he would've bagged 2? ATGs (lol) like Ferrerray took him down there, but a younger Fed would've been steamrolled? Hmm, ok.

Yes

He would have certainly won 2009 - 2004 Fed and 2010 Djoker weren't stopping that. Plus he would have probably won 2017 against a 2012 Federer and a 2018 Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

He has 2007 AO Fed losing to 2012 AO Nadal and 2006 USO Fed losing to 2011 USO Nadal. Had to pause for a moment there.

Nadal would get the best deal out of it because Djoko/Fed would kill each other for HC Slams, while he keeps on winning RG.

Also @ibbi do you seriously see Nadal scoring 3/3 vs Fed at USO? 10 beats 05 Fed, 11 beats 06 Fed and 13 beats 08 Fed?

I give him 1 out of 3(likely 2010 exposes Fed's 2005 BH) + 2019 win, so 2 USO titles.

2016 Djoker gets 1 RG, but likely not 9 AO. He would lose 1 to Rog(2007 or 2009), but 2014 Djoker would win it if he doesn't bump into Stan early (assuming draw changes).

17 or 18 Rafa, roughly(could lose one out of 2006 to Ancic or 2018 to Novak)
14 Novak.
21 Roger.

I don't think Rafa is losing to Ancic at 2006 Wimb, regardless of how well Ancic played. Rafa played a good final and that effort would be enough to beat Ancic, IMO.

2007 AO Fed could lose to 2012 AO Rafa due to how slow the surface was. Slowest it has ever been.

And 2006 USO Fed is not losing to 2011 USO Rafa. Of that I'm certain. That was Rafa's worst form among 2010, 2011 and 2013 just like 2013 was Djoker's worst among 2010, 2011 and 2013. Even the match-up wouldn't turn things in his favor, since he'd need to play well for it to matter, which he wasn't.

 

[CYGS]

Djokodal would have swept 90% of the slams, and Federer would have faded in the background and retired a mediocre player.

 

[blablavla]

Djokodal would have swept 90% of the slams, and Federer would have faded in the background and retired a mediocre player.

oh sweetie, I thought that Fed was the champion of the woulda coulda shoulda tennis
but it looks like Novak is challenging Nadal these days with his 15 moral WTF trophies

by the way, what happened with the DCGS narrative after the FO 2020?
and how deep down the throat was that bagel pushed?

 

[InsideOut900]

2007 AO Fed could lose to 2012 AO Rafa due to how slow the surface was. Slowest it has ever been.

You are too nice sometimes, gotta tell ya.
Some of the days I am the one advocating for Fed.

Federer dominated 2009 Nadal at AO for 4 sets and the court wasn't exactly fast. 2012 Nadal? Pretty good, but everything except maybe serve was worse.

Heck, his BH was legendary in the 2009 F, while in 2012 it was the biggest weakness in his game.

Even in 2012, Fed managed to open the match very well, plus scored another win in IW later, on a slow, bouncy court.

2007 AO Fed , by comparison, would compete with anyone, honestly.
Irrespective of the court conditions.

 

[mike danny]

You are too nice sometimes, gotta tell ya.
Some of the days I am the one advocating for Fed.

Federer dominated 2009 Nadal at AO for 4 sets and the court wasn't exactly fast. 2012 Nadal? Pretty good, but everything except maybe serve was worse.

Heck, his BH was legendary in the 2009 F, while in 2012 it was the biggest weakness in his game.

Even in 2012, Fed managed to open the match very well, plus scored another win in IW later, on a slow, bouncy court.

2007 AO Fed , by comparison, would compete with anyone, honestly.
Irrespective of the court conditions.

Fair enough, but Fed didn't dominate Nadal for 4 sets in the 2009 AO final even if he won significantly more points. It wasn't a 2019 Wimb final type case.

 

[InsideOut900]

Fair enough, but Fed didn't dominate Nadal for 4 sets in the 2009 AO final even if he won significantly more points. It wasn't a 2019 Wimb final type case.

Well yeah.
Nadal had a considerable contribution in winning the AO 09 final as it wasn't a Federer choke, but on pure level Federer can take on any Nadal at AO.
So 2007 should beat 2012 Nadal clearly.

Wouldn't mind Nadal beating Federer, so Novak doesn't have to though.

 

[clayqueen]

If all three were born in 1986, the slam count would roughly be as follows IMO:

Nadal: 20

• AO x 2 (2009, 2017)
• RG x 13 (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019)
• WC x 3 (2006, 2007, 2008)
• USO x 2 (2013, 2019)

Djokovic: 16

• AO x 8 (2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019)
• RG x 1 (2015)
• WC x 4 (2010, 2014, 2017, 2018)
• USO x 3 (2010, 2014, 2017)

Federer: 10

• AO x 1 (2016)
• RG x 1 (2016)
• WC x 4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013)
• USO x 4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2016)

There are a few matches that would have been 50/50 but in general the slam race would have looked like this - Thoughts?

Who would have won RG 2009?

 

[InsideOut900]

Who would have won RG 2009?

Del Potro or Sod

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Who would have won RG 2009?

I think DelPo would have grabbed it. He took Federer to 5 in the actual 2009 semi and would probably have had too much for Soderling. I don't think 2004 Fed or 2010 Djokovic were winning it.

 

[Sunny014]

If all three were born in 1986, the slam count would roughly be as follows IMO:

Nadal: 20

• AO x 2 (2009, 2017)
• RG x 13 (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019)
• WC x 3 (2006, 2007, 2008)
• USO x 2 (2013, 2019)

Djokovic: 16

• AO x 8 (2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019)
• RG x 1 (2015)
• WC x 4 (2010, 2014, 2017, 2018)
• USO x 3 (2010, 2014, 2017)

Federer: 10

• AO x 1 (2016)
• RG x 1 (2016)
• WC x 4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013)
• USO x 4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2016)

There are a few matches that would have been 50/50 but in general the slam race would have looked like this - Thoughts?

Lol, this must be the most foolish post every made.

Federer would be 5 years younger and also he would be playing with a 90 or maybe 97 racquet head since his early years, yet you think he will struggle to Rafa ?
What is even more foolish is you think Nadal will be wining HC slams from 13, 17, 19 in the presence of 2 ATGs who have 12 and 11 HC slams respectively to Nadal's 5 ? hahahahaha ....

Rafa who cannot even beat Novak in HCs after 2010 (except that odd 2013 USO) you think he will take on peak Federer as well ??

Your understanding of tennis is 0 buddy!

If they were all of the same age then Rafa's HC slam count will be a big 0, Novak won his 1st HC slam at 20 and Federer at 22, you expect a 23 year old Rafa to take the AO ? hahahahahahhaha

Rafa can at max take the 2006 and maybe the 2007 wimbledon (that is a bit doubtful too but I can say Ok), the 2008 wimbledon would surely go to Federer and every wimbledon after that would be Federer's, 0 chance for anyone to win after that !

 

[Third Serve]

lmao nice bump. Now I’ve found another thread to laugh at

 

[Sunny014]

lmao nice bump. Now I’ve found another thread to laugh at

I was shocked to see the first post, lol.
He has divided the wimbledons as if federer in the 00s was playing some ladies, he has also given rafa some HCs in the presence of 2 HC goats who would be of the same age, LOL

How can he write such nonsense ? He doesnt even consider the fact that Fed wud be using bigger racquets, would be physically similar to other 2, nothing of that sort has been taken into account

He has even gifted Nadal 13 French Opens blindly as if facing both novak + federer aged same back to back in the semis + finals for years and years will be a foregone conclusion ? lol

 

[ForehandRF]

You are too nice sometimes, gotta tell ya.
Some of the days I am the one advocating for Fed.

Federer dominated 2009 Nadal at AO for 4 sets and the court wasn't exactly fast. 2012 Nadal? Pretty good, but everything except maybe serve was worse.

Heck, his BH was legendary in the 2009 F, while in 2012 it was the biggest weakness in his game.

Even in 2012, Fed managed to open the match very well, plus scored another win in IW later, on a slow, bouncy court.

2007 AO Fed , by comparison, would compete with anyone, honestly.
Irrespective of the court conditions.

I see 2007 AO Fed winning against anyone at the AO bar absolute peak Djokovic and even then it might go to 5.

 

[Sunny014]

If Rafa can have 4 HC slams in the presence of the 2 HC goats aged same as him then he already would be having at least 8-9 HC slams, lol

 

[ForehandRF]

Thread made by a notorious Fed detractor from the VB, so no wonder.
Had all been the same age, neither of them would have won as many slams and they would have evolved into different players.

 

[Sunny014]

He has gifted Novak 8 AOs as if Federer who has won 3 AOs on plexicushion and 3 AOs on rebound ace would be winning nothing but Nadal who has struggled at the AO would take 2 ? lol ....


Even Novak and Rafa would laugh if they read such BS.

 

[mike danny]

He has gifted Novak 8 AOs as if Federer who has won 3 AOs on plexicushion and 3 AOs on rebound ace would be winning nothing but Nadal who has struggled at the AO would take 2 ? lol ....


Even Novak and Rafa would laugh if they read such BS.

All of the big 3 would laugh at the stupidity of their own fans.

 

[mike danny]

I was shocked to see the first post, lol.
He has divided the wimbledons as if federer in the 00s was playing some ladies, he has also given rafa some HCs in the presence of 2 HC goats who would be of the same age, LOL

How can he write such nonsense ? He doesnt even consider the fact that Fed wud be using bigger racquets, would be physically similar to other 2, nothing of that sort has been taken into account

He has even gifted Nadal 13 French Opens blindly as if facing both novak + federer aged same back to back in the semis + finals for years and years will be a foregone conclusion ? lol

If all 3 were of the same age, Rafa's number 1 stats would take a huge dip as no way he'd be no.1 once Fed and Novak both reach their peaks.

 

[Sunny014]

If all 3 were of the same age, Rafa's number 1 stats would take a huge dip as no way he'd be no.1 once Fed and Novak both reach their peaks.

True .... Rafa's golden period outside clay has been 2008-2010, this is a transition period between fed and novak when Fed was 27 with Mono, Novak was like 21 and another 2 years to peak, ...... Then Rafa picked some HC slams in the 2017-2019 period when competition weakened.

With both Federer and Novak both against him, winning outside clay post 2008 would be as tough as it was for Sir Andy outside grass in this era, maybe even tougher.

 

[Sunny014]

Agassi and Roddick would like this scenario though ...

Murray would hate this, 0 slams for him!

 

[USO]

If they were all the same age:

Federer 8 AO, 1 FO, 10 W, 5 US = 24

Nadal 2 AO, 13 FO, 4 W, 5 US = 24

Djokovic 6 AO, 1 FO, 3 W, 2 US = 12

Murray 1 AO, 0 FO, 3 W, 2 US = 6

 

[Sunny014]

If they were all the same age:

Federer 8 AO, 1 FO, 10 W, 5 US = 24

Nadal 2 AO, 13 FO, 4 W, 5 US = 24

Djokovic 6 AO, 1 FO, 3 W, 2 US = 12

Murray 1 AO, 0 FO, 3 W, 2 US = 6

With due respect to Sir Andy he would not win even 1 slam He is the 3rd best player of his gen who most of the times lost to a 30+ Federer in slams, if you add Federer in the mix and make him the 4th best of his gen then he would win 0, even Stan would win 0.

Realistic Slam count over a period of 13-14 years (2006-2020) would be like

Federer : 6 AO +1 FO + 10 W + 6 USO = 23
Nadal : 0 AO + 13 FO + 2 W ( 06,07 ) + 3 USO = 18
Djokovic : 5 AO + 1 FO + 2 W + 2 USO = 10
Murray = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Wawrinka = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

There would be no room for anyone to win outside the big 3 because when Federer loses then Novak will ensure the HC he wins that year, if Novak loses then Federer will win for sure, even Rafa will find it double hard to win HC, someone like Andy/Stan will not be able to win even 1 slam. Even the 06 and 07 wimbledons might be doubtful for Rafa since Roger would be around and he might start winning wimbledons from age 20, if he can beat Pete at 19-20 then who knows what would happen in 06/07?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

But exposing false narratives is actually quite fun

the only false narrative is this "if if if" rubbish. fed has 20 slams and doesn't need any narrative for that. deal.