If the Big 4 didn't exist

[nowhereman]

Who would've won the slams from 2003 Wimbledon onward if the big 4 didn't exist? Here's my take.
2003 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 AO - Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 USO - Hewitt
2005 RG - Puerta
2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt
2005 USO - Hewitt
2006 AO - Baghdatis
2006 RG - Nalbandian
2006 Wimbledon - Baghdatis( or maybe Ancic)
2006 USO - Roddick
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 RG - Davydenko
2007 Wimbledon - Gasquet
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 AO - Tsonga
2008 RG - Monfils
2008 Wimbledon - Safin
2008 USO - Delpo
2009 AO - Verdasco
2009 RG - Soderling( or maybe Delpo)
2009 Wimbledon - Roddick
2010 AO - Cilic
2010 RG - Soderling
2010 Wimbledon - Berdych
2010 USO - Soderling
2011 AO - Berdych
2011 RG - Soderling
2011 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2011 USO - Tsonga
2012 AO - Berdych
2012 RG - Delpo
2012 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2012 USO - Berdych
2013 AO - Wawrinka
2013 RG - Ferrer
2013 Wimbledon - Delpo
2013 USO - Wawrinka
2014 RG - Gulbis
2014 Wimbledon - Dimitrov( or maybe Raonic)
2015 AO - Wawrinka
2015 Wimbledon - Gasquet( or maybe Cilic)
2015 USO - Wawrinka
2016 AO - Raonic

So here are the slam totals for the players listed(in addition to the slams they already won, that is if they won a slam):
Roddick - 6
Wawrinka - 6
Hewitt - 5
Delpo - 4 or 5
Tsonga - 4
Berdych - 4
Soderling - 3 or 4
Safin - 3
Cilic - 2 or 3
Nalbandian - 2
Gasquet - 1 or 2
Raonic - 1 or 2
Baghdatis - 1 or 2
Ferrer - 1
Puerta - 1
Gonzalez - 1
Davydenko - 1
Monfils - 1
Verdasco - 1
Gulbis - 1
Dimitrov - Maybe 1
Ancic - Maybe 1

What do you guys think? Who do you think wins the slams without the big 4 around?

 

[Djokovic2011]

It's impossible to say who would've won which slams if the big 4 never existed because without them, most of the other players wouldn't have become as good as they are in the first place.

 

[nowhereman]

It's impossible to say who would've won which slams if the big 4 never existed because without them, most of the other players wouldn't have become as good as they are in the first place.

Very true, but this is assuming nothing else changes and the big 4 are the only ones out of the equation. Let's just imagine that they're still as good.

 

[Chicharito]

Like this post or @ me so I get a notification next time I log on. I will do it then

 

[The Green Mile]

2009 AO - Giiles Simon's confidence is sky high at the start of the 2009 season. Simon beats Gonzo in 4 in the QFs, wins a marathon 5 setter vs Verdasco (no GOATing Verdasco here I'm afraid, different match up), and Roddick succumbs to the pressure and folds in 4 sets. Best scenario.

 

[nowhereman]

2009 AO - Giiles Simon's confidence is sky high at the start of the 2009 season. Simon beats Gonzo in 4 in the QFs, wins a marathon 5 setter vs Verdasco (no GOATing Verdasco here I'm afraid, different match up), and Roddick succumbs to the pressure and folds in 4 sets. Best scenario.

Yes, I forgot about Simon. Definitely a worthy candidate in that year's AO, but I'm not sure if Verdasco would've succumbed to his counterpunching.

 

[The Green Mile]

Forgot to mention, Simon has another boost in confidence and wins his home Slam, resulting in no Career Slam for Federer. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Djokovic2011]

Forgot to mention, Simon has another boost in confidence and wins his home Slam, resulting in no Career Slam for Federer. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

But Federer never existed anyway so what does it matter?

 

[The Green Mile]

But Federer never existed anyway so what does it matter?

Oh yeah, lol...

 

[mattosgrant]

It's impossible to say who would've won which slams if the big 4 never existed because without them, most of the other players wouldn't have become as good as they are in the first place.

True, different course of actions, different motivations, it is impossible to say. Someone who might have injured themselves playing soccer in the hallway with Murray that we never heard about, might not have. Who knows.

Anyway tennis would suck. Wawrinka probably winning the U.S Open this past September with the way he was playing there says enough.

 

[Chicharito]

I am doing this with little thought and will just look at draws (QF on) and take 1 second to decide for each. With a bit of romance thrown in. Matches in which people got injured are tough, like I give 2016 AO to Milos as maybe he doesn't get injured in a less physical match but rules others out on injury grounds.


2003 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 AO - Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 USO - Agassi
2005 RG - Puerta
2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt
2005 USO - Hewitt
2006 AO - Baghdatis
2006 RG -Ljubicic (Nalbandian injured)
2006 Wimbledon - Ancic
2006 USO - Blake
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 RG - Davydenko
2007 Wimbledon - Gasquet
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 AO - Tsonga
2008 RG - Monfils
2008 Wimbledon - Safin
2008 USO - Delpo
2009 AO - Verdasco
2009 RG - Soderling( give him the benefit v Delpo)
2009 Wimbledon - Roddick
2010 AO - Davydenko (Cilic close)
2010 RG - Soderling
2010 Wimbledon - Berdych
2010 USO - Youzhny
2011 AO - Ferrer
2011 RG - Soderling
2011 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2011 USO - Cilic
2012 AO - del Potro
2012 RG - Almagro (Tsonga so close, delpo was injured)
2012 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2012 USO - del Potro
2013 AO - Wawrinka
2013 RG - Wawrinka (edges Ferrer)
2013 Wimbledon - Delpo (Janowicz falls short just)
2013 USO - Wawrinka
2014 RG - Gulbis (edges Monfils)
2014 Wimbledon - Dimitrov
2015 AO - Berdych
2015 Wimbledon - Cilic
2015 USO - Lopez
2016 AO - Raonic

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I am doing this with little thought and will just look at draws (QF on) and take 1 second to decide for each. With a bit of romance thrown in. Matches in which people got injured are tought, like I give 2016 AO to Milos as maybe he doesn't get injured in a less physical match but rules others out on injury grounds.


2003 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 AO - Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 USO - Agassi
2005 RG - Puerta
2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt
2005 USO - Hewitt
2006 AO - Baghdatis
2006 RG -Ljubicic (Nalbandian injured)
2006 Wimbledon - Ancic
2006 USO - Blake
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 RG - Davydenko
2007 Wimbledon - Gasquet
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 AO - Tsonga
2008 RG - Monfils
2008 Wimbledon - Safin
2008 USO - Delpo
2009 AO - Verdasco
2009 RG - Soderling( give him the benefit v Delpo)
2009 Wimbledon - Roddick
2010 AO - Davydenko (Cilic close)
2010 RG - Soderling
2010 Wimbledon - Berdych
2010 USO - Youzhny
2011 AO - Ferrer
2011 RG - Soderling
2011 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2011 USO - Cilic
2012 AO - del Potro
2012 RG - Almagro (Tsonga so close, delpo was injured)
2012 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2012 USO - del Potro
2013 AO - Wawrinka
2013 RG - Wawrinka (edges Ferrer)
2013 Wimbledon - Delpo (Janowicz falls short just)
2013 USO - Wawrinka
2014 RG - Gulbis (edges Monfils)
2014 Wimbledon - Dimitrov
2015 AO - Berdych
2015 Wimbledon - Cilic
2015 USO - Lopez
2016 AO - Raonic

Hewitt didn't drop a set until the final at the USO in '04. He'd be favored over Agassi.

 

[captainbryce]

Hewitt didn't drop a set until the final at the USO in '04. He'd be favored over Agassi.

I disagree. Agassi had pushed Federer to five sets that year, whereas Hewitt was only able to manage 6 games off Federer. Moreover, Agassi had the momentum just coming off of defeating Hewitt two weeks prior in the Cincy final. Federer plainly stated that Agassi was his biggest hurdle that year. Once he made it past him in the quarters, that pretty much assured Federer the title.

 

[NatF]

I disagree. Agassi had pushed Federer to five sets that year, whereas Hewitt was only able to manage 6 games off Federer. Moreover, Agassi had the momentum just coming off of defeating Hewitt two weeks prior in the Cincy final. Federer plainly stated that Agassi was his biggest hurdle that year. Once he made it past him in the quarters, that pretty much assured Federer the title.

Hewitt was in better form at the USO than Cincy and he'd have edge stamina wise in best of 5. Comparing the number of games isn't really convincing when Federer was at a much higher level in the final compared to the QF especially in sets 4-5 where the wind was absolutely mental.

I do think Agassi would have probably won the USO 2004 without Federer though. He was that good in that period.

 

[mattosgrant]

Hewitt didn't drop a set until the final at the USO in '04. He'd be favored over Agassi.

I think I would slightly favor Agassi to win over Hewitt in the 2004 final, and slightly favor Hewitt to win over Agassi in the 2005 final.

Kind of similar to how I would slightly favor Roddick to win over Hewitt in the 2004 Wimbledon final, and slightly favor the reverse result in the 2005 final.

Hewitt was playing well and it is true he didn't drop a set until the final but wasn't his draw to the final kind of easy due to all the upsets. I seem to recall him not playing many seeds. Agassi won over Hewitt fairly convincingly (despite being 3 sets in Cincinnati) and gave Federer a far tougher match even considering form. He had also won the previous time they played at the Open in 2002. Combine all those factors and I would give Agassi the nod that year.

 

[Krish872007]

Incredible underrating of Monfils - the greatest teacher and entertainer the world has ever seen. I think Monfils wins at least 5-6 Slams.

 

[NatF]

I think I would slightly favor Agassi to win over Hewitt in the 2004 final, and slightly favor Hewitt to win over Agassi in the 2005 final.

Kind of similar to how I would slightly favor Roddick to win over Hewitt in the 2004 Wimbledon final, and slightly favor the reverse result in the 2005 final.

Hewitt was playing well and it is true he didn't drop a set until the final but wasn't his draw to the final kind of easy due to all the upsets. I seem to recall him not playing many seeds. Agassi won over Hewitt fairly convincingly (despite being 3 sets in Cincinnati) and gave Federer a far tougher match even considering form. He had also won the previous time they played at the Open in 2002. Combine all those factors and I would give Agassi the nod that year.

Hewitt's draw wasn't tough but he did squash Lopez and Tommy Haas (who was in good form), Johansson didn't play as well as the QF but he was a dangerous opponent. Hewitt was in really good form in that period - the best of his career IMO. He made the final of the YEC not long after (smashing Roddick along the way), the final of the AO (again beating Roddick) and the final of IW (again beating Roddick - poor guy).

I think Agassi's form was better so I agree that he would be slightly favoured. Even in that 2002 match Hewitt had tons of chances and it was a really tough match with Hewitt in worse form than in 2002 at the Open.

 

[mattosgrant]

Hewitt's draw wasn't tough but he did squash Lopez and Tommy Haas (who was in good form), Johansson didn't play as well as the QF but he was a dangerous opponent. Hewitt was in really good form in that period - the best of his career IMO. He made the final of the YEC not long after (smashing Roddick along the way), the final of the AO (again beating Roddick) and the final of IW (again beating Roddick - poor guy).

I think Agassi's form was better so I agree that he would be slightly favoured. Even in that 2002 match Hewitt had tons of chances and it was a really tough match with Hewitt in worse form than in 2002 at the Open.

Hewitt was ranked #1 at the time of the 2002 U.S Open though and had won his last 3 matches with Agassi. He had the mental and momentum edge going into the match. I don't think that would be the case going into a hypothetical 2004 encounter as Agassi had won their last 2 matches, and of course Hewitt wasn't near being #1 anymore.

 

[captainbryce]

Hewitt was in better form at the USO than Cincy and he'd have edge stamina wise in best of 5.

That's a huge assumption. Agassi had no problems in best of 5 "stamina". He went through 3 consecutive best of 5 matches to get to the 2005 US Open final. And he's beaten peak Hewitt in the only best of 5 match they've played (2002 US Open).

Comparing the number of games isn't really convincing when Federer was at a much higher level in the final compared to the QF especially in sets 4-5 where the wind was absolutely mental.

Your logic cuts both ways. The other way of saying this is Agassi had to play Federer in worse conditions than Hewitt, and was able to put up a much better challenge than Hewitt could in perfect conditions.

I do think Agassi would have probably won the USO 2004 without Federer though. He was that good in that period.

I agree.

 

[tennisaddict]

Sampras will be at 30 majors as he would have not retired if Fed didn't pack him at Wimbledon

 

[Blocker]

If the big 4 didn't exist there'd still be a big 4, but with different names. Someone has to occupy the the top 4 sports and guys like Ferrer would have had about 17 slams won at all 4 of them and most ppl here would be putting him up as the GOAT.

 

[Blocker]

Sampras will be at 30 majors as he would have not retired if Fed didn't pack him at Wimbledon

What a ridiDICKulous comment. Last thing on Sampras' mind when he retired was Federer. He retired contently knowing he was light years ahead of the pack, unlike Fed. In fact, whilst their careers overlapped, Sampras won more slams than Federer. WTF was Federer doing at the USO02? He only started winning slams after Sampras retired. If Sampras stayed on Federer wouldn't be winning jack, you jackass. Where's his 6 YE#1s?

 

[metsman]

Hewitt didn't drop a set until the final at the USO in '04. He'd be favored over Agassi.

didn't drop serve. Hewitt was playing fantastic. But I think with the way Andre was playing Cincy-USO that year(prime level stuff) and with the home crowd behind him he would have an excellent chance of winning. It would be a great match. 05, Hewitt would win but probably in 5. Agassi was playing prime level tennis in sets 1-3.

Then again Agassi made those matches close with Fed by pressuring the backhand and drawing a spate of errors. That might not happen with Hewitt and Lleyton matches up well on a fast court because Andre gives plenty of steady pace to redirect without a ton of variety.

 

[metsman]

Hewitt's draw wasn't tough but he did squash Lopez and Tommy Haas (who was in good form), Johansson didn't play as well as the QF but he was a dangerous opponent. Hewitt was in really good form in that period - the best of his career IMO. He made the final of the YEC not long after (smashing Roddick along the way), the final of the AO (again beating Roddick) and the final of IW (again beating Roddick - poor guy).

I think Agassi's form was better so I agree that he would be slightly favoured. Even in that 2002 match Hewitt had tons of chances and it was a really tough match with Hewitt in worse form than in 2002 at the Open.

Hewitt really had rotten luck, Fed in the 04 TMC final was just as good as in the USO final. Just came out with the rocket launchers. Hewitt was playing poorly in the USO final but wasn't actually playing that bad at the TMC. Definitely was playing well enough to win that tournament. Hewitt really got robbed in 04 by Federer.

 

[tennisaddict]

What a ridiDICKulous comment. Last thing on Sampras' mind when he retired was Federer. He retired contently knowing he was light years ahead of the pack, unlike Fed. In fact, whilst their careers overlapped, Sampras won more slams than Federer. WTF was Federer doing at the USO02? He only started winning slams after Sampras retired. If Sampras stayed on Federer wouldn't be winning jack, you jackass. Where's his 6 YE#1s?

Sampras retired because he knew that the competition was too strong for him

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Thats a strong competitive era right there.

 

[nowhereman]

Thats a strong competitive era right there.

Looks similar to the 90's. Guys trading slams all around and no one dominating everything.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I disagree. Agassi had pushed Federer to five sets that year, whereas Hewitt was only able to manage 6 games off Federer. Moreover, Agassi had the momentum just coming off of defeating Hewitt two weeks prior in the Cincy final. Federer plainly stated that Agassi was his biggest hurdle that year. Once he made it past him in the quarters, that pretty much assured Federer the title.

Actually before the match people were thinking Hewitt had a chance, but Federer blew him away and he actually played a lot better than he did against Agassi.

Speaking of demolitions, Agassi got smacked at the Tennis Masters Cup in 2003. Federer was playing at that same level during the '04 USO final.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

didn't drop serve. Hewitt was playing fantastic. But I think with the way Andre was playing Cincy-USO that year(prime level stuff) and with the home crowd behind him he would have an excellent chance of winning. It would be a great match. 05, Hewitt would win but probably in 5. Agassi was playing prime level tennis in sets 1-3.

Then again Agassi made those matches close with Fed by pressuring the backhand and drawing a spate of errors. That might not happen with Hewitt and Lleyton matches up well on a fast court because Andre gives plenty of steady pace to redirect without a ton of variety.

I think Fed brought his level up for the final. His QF match with Andre was competitive, but after that he was in the zone. Similar to the 2003 TMC final..

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think I would slightly favor Agassi to win over Hewitt in the 2004 final, and slightly favor Hewitt to win over Agassi in the 2005 final.

Kind of similar to how I would slightly favor Roddick to win over Hewitt in the 2004 Wimbledon final, and slightly favor the reverse result in the 2005 final.

Hewitt was playing well and it is true he didn't drop a set until the final but wasn't his draw to the final kind of easy due to all the upsets. I seem to recall him not playing many seeds. Agassi won over Hewitt fairly convincingly (despite being 3 sets in Cincinnati) and gave Federer a far tougher match even considering form. He had also won the previous time they played at the Open in 2002. Combine all those factors and I would give Agassi the nod that year.

Fair enough, I don't think it's set in stone Hewitt wins -- but I'd give him the edge before the match. I wouldn't be surprised if Agassi walked away the winner in this hypothetical, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Hewitt did either.

 

[captainbryce]

Speaking of demolitions, Agassi got smacked at the Tennis Masters Cup in 2003. Federer was playing at that same level during the '04 USO final.

A) For the record, the RR match was much closer (7-6; 6-3; 7-6) than the final match.

B) Hewitt got smacked by Fed at the 2004 TMC. So to me that's a wash.

C) I don't see what this has to do with anything. What does 2003 have to do with 2004 (or 2005)?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A) For the record, the RR match was much closer (7-6; 6-3; 7-6) than the final match.

Okay, that just proves my point that Federer played a lot better in the final.

B) Hewitt got smacked by Fed at the 2004 TMC. So to me that's a wash.

And?

C) I don't see what this has to do with anything. What does 2003 have to do with 2004 (or 2005)?

It just shows a similar kind of scenario.

 

[mattosgrant]

Fair enough, I don't think it's set in stone Hewitt wins -- but I'd give him the edge before the match. I wouldn't be surprised if Agassi walked away the winner in this hypothetical, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Hewitt did either.

I don't think it is certain Agassi would win either. I would favor him something like 60-40 percentage likelihood to have won. The 2005 final is more 75-25 or greater for Hewitt, just because I don't think Agassi was fit enough to even last 5 sets at that point (well he won a bunch to make the final, but his back gave out by the 4th set of the final and he was barely moving).

 

[captainbryce]

Okay, that just proves my point that Federer played a lot better in the final.

I don't understand how that point helps the argument that Hewitt would have had a better chance of winning the US Open against Agassi.

And?

And what? You brought it up.

It just shows a similar kind of scenario.

But none of those scenarios indicate what might happen if Agassi met Hewitt in the final of the 2005 US Open.

 

[Gazelle]

I actually like that list. Why did the Big 4 have to ruin everything?

 

[mattosgrant]

The idea of Roddick winning that many slams is almost hard to wrap my head around, even though that is probably what would have now happened.

 

[citybert]

if the big 4 didnt exist this board probably wouldnt exist and tennis would be in the dumps. haters gonna hate.

 

[citybert]

The idea of Roddick winning that many slams is almost hard to wrap my head around, even though that is probably what would have now happened.

i know but he was a very popular player, talking general public not these boards and I felt that he almost had the popularity of a multi 5-6 GS winner. the first one would have still been his most impressive.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I don't understand how that point helps the argument that Hewitt would have had a better chance of winning the US Open against Agassi.

Because it's not like Agassi would do much better against Federer in the final. It'd be fairly close to be quite honest, I'd personally favor Hewitt but I feel Agassi could just as easily have won..

And what? You brought it up.

To prove my point that Agassi wouldn't be able to hang with Fed in a final at that point in time.

But none of those scenarios indicate what might happen if Agassi met Hewitt in the final of the 2005 US Open.

His struggles against journeymen on the way to the final does. And as much as you think Hewitt's not that impressive of an opponent, he's much better than the likes of Ginepri or even Blake who nearly beat him.

 

[Chanwan]

A more fun exercise, imo, would be to try and gauge who'd be the top dog and benefit from the aura of being no. 1. Slams are sometimes won on aura and by "been there, done that"-experience. Here, we're assuming everything else stays the same, which would obviously not be the case.

 

[mattosgrant]

i know but he was a very popular player, talking general public not these boards and I felt that he almost had the popularity of a multi 5-6 GS winner. the first one would have still been his most impressive.

Yeah even though many hardcore fans don't like him at all, it would actually have been great for the game. He had the personality and charisma that really appeals to casual fans (who like most things make up most of the fan base and ratings) and in North America especialy the best thing for the game would have been Roddick as atleast a semi dominant player and winning a lot of slams, and being #1 longer than a couple months. Lets face it, there is only so far interest will go in the West if one of their own isn't really really successful, more successful than Roddick actually was (albeit still considerable).

 

[moonballs]

Who would've won the slams from 2003 Wimbledon onward if the big 4 didn't exist? Here's my take.
2003 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 AO - Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 USO - Hewitt
2005 RG - Puerta
2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt
2005 USO - Hewitt
2006 AO - Baghdatis
2006 RG - Nalbandian
2006 Wimbledon - Baghdatis( or maybe Ancic)
2006 USO - Roddick
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 RG - Davydenko
2007 Wimbledon - Gasquet
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 AO - Tsonga
2008 RG - Monfils
2008 Wimbledon - Safin
2008 USO - Delpo
2009 AO - Verdasco
2009 RG - Soderling( or maybe Delpo)
2009 Wimbledon - Roddick
2010 AO - Cilic
2010 RG - Soderling
2010 Wimbledon - Berdych
2010 USO - Soderling
2011 AO - Berdych
2011 RG - Soderling
2011 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2011 USO - Tsonga
2012 AO - Berdych
2012 RG - Delpo
2012 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2012 USO - Berdych
2013 AO - Wawrinka
2013 RG - Ferrer
2013 Wimbledon - Delpo
2013 USO - Wawrinka
2014 RG - Gulbis
2014 Wimbledon - Dimitrov( or maybe Raonic)
2015 AO - Wawrinka
2015 Wimbledon - Gasquet( or maybe Cilic)
2015 USO - Wawrinka
2016 AO - Raonic

So here are the slam totals for the players listed(in addition to the slams they already won, that is if they won a slam):
Roddick - 6
Wawrinka - 6
Hewitt - 5
Delpo - 4 or 5
Tsonga - 4
Berdych - 4
Soderling - 3 or 4
Safin - 3
Cilic - 2 or 3
Nalbandian - 2
Gasquet - 1 or 2
Raonic - 1 or 2
Baghdatis - 1 or 2
Ferrer - 1
Puerta - 1
Gonzalez - 1
Davydenko - 1
Monfils - 1
Verdasco - 1
Gulbis - 1
Dimitrov - Maybe 1
Ancic - Maybe 1

What do you guys think? Who do you think wins the slams without the big 4 around?

Yes then 90's clay and the ************* will think 2003 to 2016 as the strongest era because so many slams winners are competing at the top.

 

[Bender]

Yes then 90's clay and the ************* will think 2003 to 2016 as the strongest era because so many slams winners are competing at the top.

No, that's just 90s Clay.

Edit: and don't forget Blocker.

 

[Dave1982]

Who would've won the slams from 2003 Wimbledon onward if the big 4 didn't exist? Here's my take.
2003 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 AO - Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 USO - Hewitt
2005 RG - Puerta
2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt
2005 USO - Hewitt
2006 AO - Baghdatis
2006 RG - Nalbandian
2006 Wimbledon - Baghdatis( or maybe Ancic)
2006 USO - Roddick
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 RG - Davydenko
2007 Wimbledon - Gasquet
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 AO - Tsonga
2008 RG - Monfils
2008 Wimbledon - Safin
2008 USO - Delpo
2009 AO - Verdasco
2009 RG - Soderling( or maybe Delpo)
2009 Wimbledon - Roddick
2010 AO - Cilic
2010 RG - Soderling
2010 Wimbledon - Berdych
2010 USO - Soderling
2011 AO - Berdych
2011 RG - Soderling
2011 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2011 USO - Tsonga
2012 AO - Berdych
2012 RG - Delpo
2012 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2012 USO - Berdych
2013 AO - Wawrinka
2013 RG - Ferrer
2013 Wimbledon - Delpo
2013 USO - Wawrinka
2014 RG - Gulbis
2014 Wimbledon - Dimitrov( or maybe Raonic)
2015 AO - Wawrinka
2015 Wimbledon - Gasquet( or maybe Cilic)
2015 USO - Wawrinka
2016 AO - Raonic

So here are the slam totals for the players listed(in addition to the slams they already won, that is if they won a slam):
Roddick - 6
Wawrinka - 6
Hewitt - 5
Delpo - 4 or 5
Tsonga - 4
Berdych - 4
Soderling - 3 or 4
Safin - 3
Cilic - 2 or 3
Nalbandian - 2
Gasquet - 1 or 2
Raonic - 1 or 2
Baghdatis - 1 or 2
Ferrer - 1
Puerta - 1
Gonzalez - 1
Davydenko - 1
Monfils - 1
Verdasco - 1
Gulbis - 1
Dimitrov - Maybe 1
Ancic - Maybe 1

What do you guys think? Who do you think wins the slams without the big 4 around?

Nice work and of course there can and will be debate on whether other players would have made final and won in absence of Big 4 (Delpo at RG09 being classic example) but in broad terms I think the overall Slam totals for players is about where you'd expect it to be.

The big surprise for me is probably Ferrer, whilst you've obviously afforded him the RG13 Slam you'd probably expect him to have maybe 3 or 4 to his name without the Big 4 being in existence...maybe not though.
Roddick, Hewitt and Wawrinka almost certainly would be closer to the figures you've suggested and interesting to see berdych on 4...fair enough though.

 

[PeterHo]

Extended weak era and dark ages of tennis.

no better player than edberg/becker for 13 years... unthinkable.

 

[nowhereman]

Nice work and of course there can and will be debate on whether other players would have made final and won in absence of Big 4 (Delpo at RG09 being classic example) but in broad terms I think the overall Slam totals for players is about where you'd expect it to be.

The big surprise for me is probably Ferrer, whilst you've obviously afforded him the RG13 Slam you'd probably expect him to have maybe 3 or 4 to his name without the Big 4 being in existence...maybe not though.
Roddick, Hewitt and Wawrinka almost certainly would be closer to the figures you've suggested and interesting to see berdych on 4...fair enough though.

What would your list look like? I personally don't see Ferrer winning multiple slams but it might be possible if his game is really on or if he gets an easy draw.

 

[Dave1982]

What would your list look like? I personally don't see Ferrer winning multiple slams but it might be possible if his game is really on or if he gets an easy draw.

As mentioned I don't think my list would look too different and any differences would simply be based on a "would he have beaten him" subjective basis...and in reality would probably only be relevant to the single Slam winners.

I do tend to agree in regards to Ferrer....it's easy to assume he would have more than one Slam but it's darn difficult to actually make a case for him to. Take even this years AO, I thought he was playing really solid tennis however take out Big 4 and he makes SF where he would have played Raonic....seriously doubt he would have won that match and that's where his problem lies...he's a very good player but he doesn't really have a "beast mode" which without consistency of Big 4, you almost require if you're going to win multiple Slams.

 

[Zoolander]

Who would've won the slams from 2003 Wimbledon onward if the big 4 didn't exist? Here's my take.
2003 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 AO - Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon - Roddick
2004 USO - Hewitt
2005 RG - Puerta
2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt
2005 USO - Hewitt
2006 AO - Baghdatis
2006 RG - Nalbandian
2006 Wimbledon - Baghdatis( or maybe Ancic)
2006 USO - Roddick
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 RG - Davydenko
2007 Wimbledon - Gasquet
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 AO - Tsonga
2008 RG - Monfils
2008 Wimbledon - Safin
2008 USO - Delpo
2009 AO - Verdasco
2009 RG - Soderling( or maybe Delpo)
2009 Wimbledon - Roddick
2010 AO - Cilic
2010 RG - Soderling
2010 Wimbledon - Berdych
2010 USO - Soderling
2011 AO - Berdych
2011 RG - Soderling
2011 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2011 USO - Tsonga
2012 AO - Berdych
2012 RG - Delpo
2012 Wimbledon - Tsonga
2012 USO - Berdych
2013 AO - Wawrinka
2013 RG - Ferrer
2013 Wimbledon - Delpo
2013 USO - Wawrinka
2014 RG - Gulbis
2014 Wimbledon - Dimitrov( or maybe Raonic)
2015 AO - Wawrinka
2015 Wimbledon - Gasquet( or maybe Cilic)
2015 USO - Wawrinka
2016 AO - Raonic

So here are the slam totals for the players listed(in addition to the slams they already won, that is if they won a slam):
Roddick - 6
Wawrinka - 6
Hewitt - 5
Delpo - 4 or 5
Tsonga - 4
Berdych - 4
Soderling - 3 or 4
Safin - 3
Cilic - 2 or 3
Nalbandian - 2
Gasquet - 1 or 2
Raonic - 1 or 2
Baghdatis - 1 or 2
Ferrer - 1
Puerta - 1
Gonzalez - 1
Davydenko - 1
Monfils - 1
Verdasco - 1
Gulbis - 1
Dimitrov - Maybe 1
Ancic - Maybe 1

What do you guys think? Who do you think wins the slams without the big 4 around?

Wow...... i think your imagination is only exceeded by your amount of spare time.....

if the big 4 didnt exist this board probably wouldnt exist and tennis would be in the dumps. haters gonna hate.

TT would still exist, but as a poster said above every single thread would be "Are we in a weak era??"

 

[NatF]

Hewitt was ranked #1 at the time of the 2002 U.S Open though and had won his last 3 matches with Agassi. He had the mental and momentum edge going into the match. I don't think that would be the case going into a hypothetical 2004 encounter as Agassi had won their last 2 matches, and of course Hewitt wasn't near being #1 anymore.

Indeed, Hewitt was #1 but his form at the USO wasn't as good as the year before and he wasn't able to consistently raise his game in the 2002 SF to beat Agassi - despite outplaying Agassi at times. I do favour Agassi but I think Hewitt's form in 2004 is underrated a little because of what happened in the final.

That's a huge assumption. Agassi had no problems in best of 5 "stamina". He went through 3 consecutive best of 5 matches to get to the 2005 US Open final. And he's beaten peak Hewitt in the only best of 5 match they've played (2002 US Open).

Agassi was looking a bit tired before the weather suspended play in the QF that year. Agassi could go 5 sets sure but I would favour Hewitt in a 5 setter.

Your logic cuts both ways. The other way of saying this is Agassi had to play Federer in worse conditions than Hewitt, and was able to put up a much better challenge than Hewitt could in perfect conditions.

Wind is a great equaliser so I disagree with you here and Agassi is one of the greatest wind players of all time.

Hewitt really had rotten luck, Fed in the 04 TMC final was just as good as in the USO final. Just came out with the rocket launchers. Hewitt was playing poorly in the USO final but wasn't actually playing that bad at the TMC. Definitely was playing well enough to win that tournament. Hewitt really got robbed in 04 by Federer.

I don't think Federer was quite that good in the YEC final but he was pretty unplayable. I don't think Hewitt was that poor in the USO final.He played really well in that 2nd set IMO.

Hewitt was awesome in the SF of YEC in 2004, absolutely smashed Roddick - who didn't play well but had been in great form in that event.

 

[nowhereman]

Wow...... i think your imagination is only exceeded by your amount of spare time.....



TT would still exist, but as a poster said above every single thread would be "Are we in a weak era??"

Yes, I do waste a lot of my free time on here unfortunately. What do you think of the list?