Just think, if Nadal never existed, Djokovic would be the undisputed GOAT of all time.

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
No, without Nadal Fed would be the undisputed GOAT.
The only Slam in which Fed have really stopped Djokovic from winning the title was 07 USO. Maybe 09 USO also were I think he would have a great shot against Delpo that year.
11 RG Djoker is losing to Nadal in the final, and 12 WB is losing to Murray in the final.
So Fed is kinda irrelevant for the topic at hand, don't you think!? ;)
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
No, without Nadal Fed would be the undisputed GOAT.
Exactly. He is the Alpha of the group and without Nadal and later Djo he would ha e had a weak decade of feasting instead of those first years until Nadal exploded on scene.

But, Fedal has been epic and made tennis what it is today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Exactly. He is the Alpha of the group and without Nadal and later Djo he would ha e had a weak decade of feasting instead of those first years until Nadal exploded on scene.

But, Fedal has been epic and made tennis what it is today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nah, he would have had it a bit easier until 2007 when Djojovic would break onto the scene and play Fed in all 4 slams.
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
You can’t propose an alternate universe without one of the major influences in said environment and just assume everything else would happen the same way as in reality minus/plus some hard data.

Now in plain words - you can’t just assume that without Rafa, Djoker would win exactly as much as he has plus I don’t know what on top. The big three are pushing themselves because of the “other two” all the time and their success is in big part owed to their rivalries. To contemplate ones potential success in an alternate reality will therefore be wildly inaccurate and thus utterly pointless...
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
You can’t propose an alternate universe without one of the major influences in said environment and just assume everything else would happen the same way as in reality minus/plus some hard data.

Now in plain words - you can’t just assume that without Rafa, Djoker would win exactly as much as he has plus I don’t know what on top. The big three are pushing themselves because of the “other two” all the time and their success is in big part owed to their rivalries. To contemplate ones potential success in an alternate reality will therefore be wildly inaccurate and thus utterly pointless...
This makes way too much sense!
 

ibbi

Legend
You can pretty much say that about any of the three of them.

No Federer -
Novak surely has at least one or two more USO, more than likely RG 11, Nadal has likely 2 more Wimbledons to his name, plus AO17.

No Nadal -
Federer must have minimum 5 RG titles, another Wimbledon, AO14, and he probably wouldn't have minded his chances at AO12 either. Djokovic probably has 5 RG titles as well, 2 more USO's.

No Djokovic -
Rog has almost surely got 3 more Wimbledon titles to his name, will have liked his chances at for sure 3 more Aussie Opens, maybe 4 at a stretch, he won't probably have minded his chances at 10/11 USO, and he'd almost certainly have the 2015 one in the bag. Nadal would have almost for sure 2 more Wimbledons, 2 more AO, one more USO.
 
Post Imagine, while you're at it :love:
... this version ? :giggle:




Imagine there's no nadal,
It's easy if you try,
No clay below us,
Only low bouncing carpet,
Imagine all the players
Playing entertaining tennis...

Imagine there's no nadal
It isn't hard to do
No cheating to bear
And no faking too
Imagine all the players
Playing tennis in peace...

Imagine no topspin plague,
I wonder if you can,
No need for buttpick or phony uncle,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the players
Butchering the golden bull...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And tennis will be saved.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Federer? Lol yeah sure ok the guy has a few extra slams, but he is like 10 years older and won most of them beating unformidable opponents in a weak era eons ago.
He would have had 10 straight majors if not for Nadal. I don't care about the weak or strong era argument.. if a player does that on top of holding the record for majors and two CYGS, he's the GOAT.
 
If Nadal never existed Federer would have probably been number one for 7 straight years and have 26+ slams...
Interesting to think how many times Federer would have been #1 had neither Nadal nor Djokovic taken up tennis. In those circumstances, and assuming nobody else developed better than they did to fill the gap, it's conceivable that Federer would have been #1 for nine straight years (2004-2012), two further years after recovering from injury (2014-15, although by 2015 it is pretty likely that Murray would have got #1 overall by doing better in minor tournaments even if Federer got the best of him in majors), and one to three further years after recovering from injury again (2017-19, although I don't think 2018 or 2019 can be taken for granted by any means).

It's also possible that in a Nadal/Djokovic-less tour, some of Federer's contemporaries such as Roddick would have played for longer and been well placed to take advantage of any dips in Federer's form.
 
Your definition of ‘complete ‘ player is laughable .Even Zverev or Medvedev can win all tournaments, but that proves zilch

Djokovic does not have an allcourt game . Plain and simple.
Shankerer got thrashed up and down the globe by a Spanish clay boy because he couldn't hit a proper backhand for most of his career. Jajajajaja! He's so goaty though, no?
 

Lew II

Legend
Your definition of ‘complete ‘ player is laughable .Even Zverev or Medvedev can win all tournaments, but that proves zilch

Djokovic does not have an allcourt game . Plain and simple.
Oh and I thought that winning on all surfaces is a proof of being complete. The proof is the eye test from Fed fans, as always...
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Nah, he would have had it a bit easier until 2007 when Djojovic would break onto the scene and play Fed in all 4 slams.

Yeah, I think Djo would have taken some, but early Djo wasn't as big a challenge for Fed, and by 2007 Fed would have had several years of winning about everything. Crazy to even think about...
 

RelentlessAttack

Professional
Nole wouldn’t be who he is without Nadal, and Nadal wouldn’t be who he is with Federer. And Wawrinka wouldn’t be who he is without Djokovic, and so on. Just confusing why no other players were similarly forged from adversity thereafter
 

Lew II

Legend
The original comment is that he doesn't have an all-court game. That refers to the ability to play in the backcourt, midcourt and net. Not the ability to win on any type of court surface.

You guys are arguing apples & oranges.
Simplistic view. There are many different types of baseline game. Do you think Agassi and Brugera played the same way just because they were baseliners?

Djokovic masters the most of them, as the results prove.
 
Top