Let's play the game--what if the Big 3 were all born in 1981?

M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Another poster submitted that their results would be wildly different in that case, so, although this is totally silly, I had a look at each and every grand slam tournament from 2000 (when Nadal would have been 19) to 2011 (when Djokovic would have been his current age). Here are my (largely unbiased) results, although some sure are debatable. When in doubt, I leaned towards the guy who had the most success at a slam, historically (ie Nadal at RG, etc.). Be warned, though--this is a pretty long post.

* 2000 (2005 Nadal, 2006 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; depending on his side of the draw, Nadal either loses badly to Kuerten or is crushed by Norman. Kuerten still wins.
- Wimbledon: everyone a non-factor.
- USO: everyone a non-factor.

Tally: Nadal loses 1 slam

* 2001 (2006 Nadal, 2007 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal probably loses to Kuerten (may have a chance, though). Kuerten still wins.
- Wimbledon: everyone a non-factor (Nadal navigates through the draw much better than the other two, but loses badly to either Rafter of Ivanisevic).
- USO: Federer and Nadal a non-factor, a young Djokovic is schooled by either Hewitt or Sampras during the second week.

Tally: Nadal probably loses 1 slam

* 2002 (2007 Nadal, 2008 Djokovic)
- AO: Federer and Nadal a non-factor, Djokovic is crushed by Safin on his way to the final. Johansson still wins (except if Djokovic is on the other side of the draw, in which case Safin gets it).
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal beats Costa. Nadal wins.
- Wimbledon: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; should Nadal land in Nalbandian's part of the draw, he gets schooled big time; on the other half, he may make it to the final if he can navigate through Hewitt and Henman. In case he does, Nalbandian wins the final and gets a slam.
- USO: Federer and Nadal a non-factor; Djokovic goes much farther than the others, but Sampras or Agassi are still too strong for him.

Tally: Djokovic loses 1 slam

* 2003 (2008 Nadal, 2009 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal was very strong in 2008, but so was Ferrero in 2003. Probably a toss-up between the two.
- Wimbledon: Djokovic a non-factor; Federer bursts upon the scene, but Nadal is too strong for him. Nadal wins.
- USO: no change, 2009 Djokovic not good enough to deny Roddick his lone slam, not with both Roddick and Nalbandian going far in the draw.

Tally: Nadal loses 1 slam, possibly 2 (1 slam loss counted between this and RG 2001), Federer loses 1 slam

* 2004 (2009 Nadal, 2010 Djokovic)
- AO: Nadal makes SF, but a non-scarred Federer blows him away. If Nadal is on the other side of the draw, he loses to Safin, also in SF. Federer wins.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal on an iffy year, gets beaten by either Coria or Gaudio. Gaudio wins.
- Wimbledon: no change, Federer just blows everyone away.
- USO: same as Wimbledon. Federer wins easily.

Tally: Nadal loses 2 slams

* 2005 (2010 Nadal, 2011 Djokovic)
- AO: Djokovic has a great run, but he's never beaten Safin and, once again, the Russian prevails after a huge fight. Safin wins.
- RG: Federer makes SF, but the final is contested between Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal plays at a fairly high level, but Djokovic has learned how to beat him consistently. Djokovic wins (and gets his first slam at RG, of all places).
- Wimbledon: no change, Federer just waltzes through the draw despite a strong showing by Nadal (straight-setted in SF) and Djokovic (yet another straight-set win).
- USO: all three are really strong, but Federer beats Djokovic in the semi and Nadal in the final, both in four sets.

Tally: Djokovic loses 2 slams, Nadal loses 3

* 2006 (2011 Nadal, 2012 Djokovic)
- AO: this time, there's no Safin to deny Djokovic, and he beats Federer after a long, bitterly-fought final. Djokovic wins.
- RG: Federer has beaten Nadal in Rome, which gives him the confidence he needs to win the only slam missing on his resume. Federer wins and gets career GS much sooner than in the real world.
- Wimbledon: yet another strong showing by Nadal, to no avail. Federer wins in three easy sets.
- USO: same as Wimbledon, Nadal makes the final, but is beaten by Federer. Federer wins.

Tally: Nadal loses 1 slam

* 2007 (2012 Nadal, 2013 Djokovic)
- AO: both Nadal and Djokovic reach the last four, but Federer makes mincemeat of everyone. Federer wins.
- RG: this one is more of a toss-up. Once again, they all make the last four. Djokovic loses in SF, but let's give this to Nadal (other option being Federer and CYGS).
- Wimbledon: easy win for Federer.
- USO: Djokovic makes the final, but loses to Fed in four closely-fought sets. Federer wins.

Tally: Djokovic loses 1 slam (with a possibility of Nadal losing 1 slam and Federer gaining 1).

* 2008 (2013 Nadal, 2014 Djokovic)
- AO: yet another one that is tough to call. Fed's got mono, and there's no Wawrinka to beat Djokovic, so let's give it to him. Djokovic wins.
- RG: Nadal wins.
- Wimbledon: Federer wins.
- USO: Nadal wins.

Tally: no change

* 2009 (2014 Nadal, 2015 Djokovic)
- AO: a furious five-setter in the final, and in the end, Djokovic prevails against Federer.
- RG: depending on where Djokovic lands, it's either he loses to Fed in SF and then Nadal wins in the final, or he beat Nadal in SF and then loses to Fed. So let's give this one to Nadal, on principle.
- Wimbledon: Djokovic makes the final, but Servebotterer won't be denied.
- USO: Djokovic wins.

Tally: Federer and Djokovic lose 1 slam

* 2010 (2015 Nadal, 2016 Djokovic)
- AO: Federer wins.
- RG: Djokovic wins.
- Wimbledon: with everyone injured or out of sorts, this one goes to the guy who plays Berdych in the final, probably Murray.
- USO: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.

Tally: Federer gains 1 slam, Djokovic loses 1

* 2011 (2016 Nadal, 2017 Djokovic)
- AO: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.
- RG: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.
- Wimbledon: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer injured. Murray wins.
- USO: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.

Tally: Federer gains 3 slams

Totals as of 2011, with all of them being 30:
- Nadal: 7 (5 RG, 1 Wimbledon, 1 USO – no CGS) – (will add RG 2012, USO 2012 (ie his 2017) to make it at least 9)
- Djokovic: 6 (3 AO, 2 Wimbledon, 1 USO – no CGS) – (will add ???)
- Federer: 18 (4 AO, 2 RG, 6 Wimbledon, 6 USO – CGS, possible CYGS) – (will add Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015, USO 2015, AO 2017, Wimbledon 2017 to make it at least 24) :eek:

As they say--discuss. :cool:

(Who said 2018 couldn't come soon enough?) :D
 
Last edited:
Skeletroll said:
This seems like a post to hate on Nadal/Djokovic and praise Federer even more
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. "Hating" on the Internet is for kids who have no idea about the real meaning of the word. One of our esteemed posters was wondering what the score would be if Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were born on the same year. However, he was kind of lazy and just threw the idea in the air (some would say "for trolling"), so I did the research. These are the most probable results (imho) in such an hypothetical scenario, is all (of course, it's possible that such a change would distort everything and that Gasquet suddenly emerges as GOAT with 30+ slams, but somehow, this didn't feel like the most likely outcome).

This is totally silly, btw, and I only did it because I had time on my hands. Now, the numbers can be argued (+/-1 or even +/-2 for any player are among the realm of possibilities, I suppose), but the overall result is probably close to what most sensible persons think would have happened in such a case (ie that the player who is the most penalized in the current scenario would be *less* penalized by removing the age disadvantage).

Oh, would it help if I added "I am a Federer and Nadal and Djokovic fan" and made a reference to Wimbledon 2008 somewhere in this thread, btw? ;)
 
Last edited:
If they were all born in 1981, Federer struggles to win more than a handful of slams. He would have been destroyed by peak Nadal and Djokovic for the first decade, and then maybe picks up some scraps as they age.
 
Djokovic would lose out the most. Federer but ESPECIALLY Nadal have much stronger safe havens (Wimbledon and RG). At the AO and the USO it would be an epic struggle between the three (especially Djokovic-Federer). I suspect Nadal would have the most Slams by about 2011-2012 but that by 2017 Federer may have caught up or passed Nadal (bear in mind that if Nadal was born in 1981 he'd be 31 in 2012).
 
-NN- said:
Djokovic would lose out the most. Federer but ESPECIALLY Nadal have much stronger safe havens (Wimbledon and RG). At the AO and the USO it would be an epic struggle between the three (especially Djokovic-Federer). I suspect Nadal would have the most Slams by about 2011-2012 but that by 2017 Federer may have caught up or passed Nadal (bear in mind that if Nadal was born in 1981 he'd be 31 in 2012).
Click to expand...

Nadal probably gets off to a fast start but Federer would lose some of the mental baggage and pressure coming up second which would help him overall. I expect Federer would win about the same in the long run - providing Nadal/Djokovic aren't playing exceptional tennis at 34+. We'd have a very stacked era though initially with Federer's generation and Djokodal all peaking at the same time. I think Djokovic would probably suffer the most, I wonder if he'd be able to slide and defend as well on RA which was notoriously sticky...Even without peak Fed around for most of his peak he's managed just 2 USO's so I don't expect him to have much joy there. Nadal would have his clay fortress (though his early draws would be quite tough) but would actually have to go through tough draws to win his USO's :D
 
Nadal would lose to 2003-2007 weak era roddick, gonzalez, baghdatis, hewitt, safin, tipsarevic, santoro

and then darcis, rosol, brown, kyrgios in straights

and even more to weak era federer
 
-NN- said:
Djokovic would lose out the most. Federer but ESPECIALLY Nadal have much stronger safe havens (Wimbledon and RG). At the AO and the USO it would be an epic struggle between the three (especially Djokovic-Federer). I suspect Nadal would have the most Slams by about 2011-2012 but that by 2017 Federer may have caught up or passed Nadal (bear in mind that if Nadal was born in 1981 he'd be 31 in 2012).
Click to expand...
I think, as you said, that Fed would lose some slams at the beginning, but would make up for the loss in his 30's by adding more.

In terms of being no.1, I think Nadal would be the most affected, because on average Federer and Djokovic are more consistent players than him so they would have the no.1 ranking on lockdown and share it between them. Nadal would suffer the most as far as being no.1.
 
NatF said:
Nadal probably gets off to a fast start but Federer would lose some of the mental baggage and pressure coming up second which would help him overall. I expect Federer would win about the same in the long run - providing Nadal/Djokovic aren't playing exceptional tennis at 34+. We'd have a very stacked era though initially with Federer's generation and Djokodal all peaking at the same time. I think Djokovic would probably suffer the most, I wonder if he'd be able to slide and defend as well on RA which was notoriously sticky...Even without peak Fed around for most of his peak he's managed just 2 USO's so I don't expect him to have much joy there. Nadal would have his clay fortress (though his early draws would be quite tough) but would actually have to go through tough draws to win his USO's :D
Click to expand...
Still staggering that Nadal has yet to succeed in a tough draw at the USO. He deserves all of his titles there, but it's an interesting coincidence.

His USO titles should put to bed the idea that Nadal had to go through hell and overcome the toughest competition ever.
 
Federer would lose practically all, if not ALL, of the slams he swept up during the weak era to a peak Nadal and Djokovic. And Federer would have lost the "aura" that saw his non-ATG opponents defeated before a ball was struck, so he wouldn't have been given the special draws, scheduling and surface replacement that he has benefitted from this season -so those slams probably go missing.

Overall, this scenario would be a disaster for Federer and his legacy.
 
mike danny said:
Still staggering that Nadal has yet to succeed in a tough draw at the USO. He deserves all of his titles there, but it's an interesting coincidence.

His USO titles should put to bed the idea that Nadal had to go through hell and overcome the toughest competition ever.
Click to expand...

If he came in as the #2 seed in 2005 (like in reality) he might have to go through Blake and Agassi back to back and then take on Federer (after Ginepri). We're obviously playing it safe with our speculation by not varying things too much but the the tennis landscape would be hugely different. Impossible to predict how careers and mentalities would evolve.

Nadal has had numerous injury issues, does the mere 5 year differential in sports science prevent him from returning from injuries in the way that he has in the past?
 
NatF said:
Nadal probably gets off to a fast start but Federer would lose some of the mental baggage and pressure coming up second which would help him overall. I expect Federer would win about the same in the long run - providing Nadal/Djokovic aren't playing exceptional tennis at 34+. We'd have a very stacked era though initially with Federer's generation and Djokodal all peaking at the same time. I think Djokovic would probably suffer the most, I wonder if he'd be able to slide and defend as well on RA which was notoriously sticky...Even without peak Fed around for most of his peak he's managed just 2 USO's so I don't expect him to have much joy there. Nadal would have his clay fortress (though his early draws would be quite tough) but would actually have to go through tough draws to win his USO's :D
Click to expand...

That's what I've got, basically. To recap, they *all* lose at first (yes, even Nadal, he loses his first two RG's by losing to established claycourters), but Federer makes up for it big time when nearing 30. Also, Nadal 2010 gets crushed between Djokovic 2011 (at RG) and Federer 2005 (at Wimbledon and USO), which hurts him big time. Djokovic loses half his AO's, including two to Safin (or a Safin/Hewitt combo for the second one). And in this scenario, Nadal ends up with 0 USO, and Djokovic with 0 Wimbledon (this one is debatable, though... there's definitely a case to be made for Djokovic 2015 over Federer 2009 at Wimby--but he would also have to beat an excellent Roddick, which is anything but a given).
 
Spencer Gore said:
If they were all born in 1981, Federer struggles to win more than a handful of slams. He would have been destroyed by peak Nadal and Djokovic for the first decade, and then maybe picks up some scraps as they age.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Federer high slam winning rate in his peak years 2004-07 will not be the same if Nadal/Nole are at the same age, but he will make up for the deficiency in the second half of his career when Nadal/Nole start slowing down in their 30s. Federer total slam count will be evenly distributed throughout his long career and will retain the same amount(19) if not more. He's also likely to win the CYGS when Nadal peak years on clay are over.
 
Last edited:
Is the assumption that Nadal didn’t become the player that he did with that lengthy incubation period during his teens while Federer was laying waste to the tour?

If they suddenly share a birthdate, that’s all gone. No Kryptonite-fashioning from afar. To a lesser degree, same for Djoker.

The whole antidote progression gets shredded. Likelihood is high that their games never reach the heights that they did, at all.
 
NatF said:
If he came in as the #2 seed in 2005 (like in reality) he might have to go through Blake and Agassi back to back and then take on Federer (after Ginepri). We're obviously playing it safe with our speculation by not varying things too much but the the tennis landscape would be hugely different. Impossible to predict how careers and mentalities would evolve.

Nadal has had numerous injury issues, does the mere 5 year differential in sports science prevent him from returning from injuries in the way that he has in the past?
Click to expand...
You mean does the dope change?

Quickly. Though I'm not sure if it's the same for injury treatment
 
FedFosterWallace said:
How is there a split when they both benefited from developing their games with the Fed target...?
Click to expand...
The "Fed target" disappears because he probably wins zip if they all play at their peak against the rest of the weak era.

Why would Federer keep playing without any records to chase? He probably retires at 30 or 31, possibly without winning a single slam.
 
Spencer Gore said:
The "Fed target" disappears because he probably wins zip if they all play at their peak against the rest of the weak era.

Why would Federer keep playing without any records to chase? He probably retires at 30 or 31, possibly without winning a single slam.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t even approach logic. Federer gave them fights (and/or won them) when they had the advantage of youth, as well as a template for study during their development. He created the blueprint. Comes down to talent and innovation without a stencil. GSM.
 
Spencer Gore said:
The "Fed target" disappears because he probably wins zip if they all play at their peak against the rest of the weak era.

Why would Federer keep playing without any records to chase? He probably retires at 30 or 31, possibly without winning a single slam.
Click to expand...

Federer at 36 is the best player in 2017. Shouldn't Nadal/Nole be the two best players while Federer either retire or out of the top 10? I'm sure Federer would win the most if all 3 are at the same age.
 
Spencer Gore said:
The "Fed target" disappears because he probably wins zip if they all play at their peak against the rest of the weak era.

Why would Federer keep playing without any records to chase? He probably retires at 30 or 31, possibly without winning a single slam.
Click to expand...
If Federer faced peak Santoro, Tipsarevic and crew you're probably right.
 
TMF said:
Federer at 36 is the best player in 2017. Shouldn't Nadal/Nole be the two best players while Federer either retire or out of the top 10? I'm sure Federer would win the most if all 3 are at the same age.
Click to expand...
A 36 year old Jimmy Connors would probably have won the majority of games against Borg and McEnroe in their 30s. But would lose the majority of matches at their peak.

Federer has longevity as one of his greatest assets, but at their peak he was the weakest of the big 3. The stats prove it.
 
Spencer Gore said:
A 36 year old Jimmy Connors would probably have won the majority of games against Borg and McEnroe in their 30s. But would lose the majority of matches at their peak.

Federer has longevity as one of his greatest assets, but at their peak he was the weakest of the big 3. The stats prove it.
Click to expand...
Nothing's been proven here. You're beating a dead horse. Credit for making an effort when there's virtually no light at the end of the tunnel.

No response to my post? L.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Federer would lose practically all, if not ALL, of the slams he swept up during the weak era to a peak Nadal and Djokovic. And Federer would have lost the "aura" that saw his non-ATG opponents defeated before a ball was struck, so he wouldn't have been given the special draws, scheduling and surface replacement that he has benefitted from this season -so those slams probably go missing.

Overall, this scenario would be a disaster for Federer and his legacy.
Click to expand...
Nadal and Djokovic would beat Federer at Wimbledon/USO in 2004-2007?

AO sure can see Djokovic denying him a couple. He'd more than make up for this in 2010-2017 period with 5-6 AO very likely.
 
Spencer Gore said:
he probably wins zip if they all play at their peak against the rest of the weak era.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this. As if it's true or something.
Weird.

Spencer Gore said:
Why would Federer keep playing without any records to chase? He probably retires at 30 or 31, possibly without winning a single slam.
Click to expand...
If you actually think this is true, how salty are you that back in reality, Fed has left his rivals in the dust and is currently chasing nothing but history?

Nineteen slams and still being #2 at age 36 is the reality.
 
metsman said:
Federer loses 1-2 AO, maybe 1 USO at his peak, and then brings out the Mac truck to load up the GS trophies after they all turn 29.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He takes a little dent from Djokovic at the HC slams, and then has huge gains in the latter part of his career. Nadal easily loses out the most overall.

Spencer Gore seems to think that this should be taken as Fed playing 2008 Nadal and 2011/15 Djokovic or something for every year for his whole career, and the result of that ridiculousness would (and should) be Fed's "true" slam count.
 
Firstservingman said:
Exactly. He takes a little dent from Djokovic at the HC slams, and then has huge gains in the latter part of his career. Nadal easily loses out the most overall.

Spencer Gore seems to think that this should be taken as Fed playing 2008 Nadal and 2011/15 Djokovic or something for every year for his whole career, and the result of that ridiculousness would (and should) be Fed's "true" slam count.
Click to expand...
well nadal is still winning 10 RG so I'm not sure he loses out the most. Djokovic probably loses the most because he isn't as much of a lock at AO as Fed/Nadal are at their pet slams.
 
metsman said:
well nadal is still winning 10 RG so I'm not sure he loses out the most. Djokovic probably loses the most because he isn't as much of a lock at AO as Fed/Nadal are at their pet slams.
Click to expand...
I meant that Nadal would likely lose his HC slams to Fed and Djokovic.
 
Starting from 2004 Vs. 2010 Vs. 2011

2004/2010/2011:
AO: Federer slightly on RA. Djokovic by a bit on Plexi.
RG: Nadal.
Wimbledon: Federer.
USO: Federer.

2005/2011/2012.
AO: Federer
RG: Depends on who is seeded where. Federer/Djokovic I think.
Wimbledon: Federer.
USO: Federer.

2006/2012/2013

AO: Djokovic.
RG: Nadal.
Wimbledon: Federer
USO: Federer

2007/2013/2014

AO: Federer.
RG: Might actually go with Federer.
Wimbledon: Federer.
USO: Federer.

2008/2014/2015

AO: Djokovic.
RG: Nadal by a little bit.
Wimbledon: Federer because he wouldn't have a big mental block against 2015 Djokovic.
USO: Federer

2009/2015/2016

AO: Djokovic
RG: Federer because he was able to reach a higher level.
Wimbledon: Federer.
USO: Federer.

2010/2016/2017
AO: Federer.
RG: None.
Wimbledon: None.
USO: Federer.

Ideas? @metsman
 
merlinpinpin said:
Here are my (largely unbiased) results, although some sure are debatable. When in doubt, I leaned towards the guy who had the most success at a slam, historically (ie Nadal at RG, etc.). Be warned, though--this is a pretty long post.

* 2003 (2008 Nadal, 2009 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal was very strong in 2008, but so was Ferrero in 2003. Probably a toss-up between the two.
Click to expand...

The 2008 version of Nadal potentially loses to Ferrero at 2003 French Open!? Might want to be charitable and let him have that one lol............

On a more serious note, someone should print out all the draw sheets and work out the seedings and really do this properly. Use Nadal and Djokovic's equivalent seedings and actually drop them into the equivalent draws according to their seeding (replacing the matching seed of that time) and literally "take them through time" pitting them in the draw according to how their equivalent seed progressed.

No intellectual rigour to it but would be a fun experiment and would give more weight to the importance of the draw and the field, which is constantly overlooked in these types of exercises.
 
Last edited:
Firstservingman said:
I meant that Nadal would likely lose his HC slams to Fed and Djokovic.
Click to expand...
But he's still guaranteed 10+ slams, just like Fed is guaranteed 10+ from Wimby/USO. Djokovic has 12 anyways so he might be in danger of not getting to 10 considering his pet slam would be the most under attack and more than a few of those Wimby/USO titles would be going to Federer.
 
Let's play the game--what if the Big 3 were all born in 1981?


merlinpinpin said:
Another poster submitted that their results would be wildly different in that case, so, although this is totally silly, I had a look at each and every grand slam tournament from 2000 (when Nadal would have been 19) to 2011 (when Djokovic would have been his current age). Here are my (largely unbiased) results, although some sure are debatable. When in doubt, I leaned towards the guy who had the most success at a slam, historically (ie Nadal at RG, etc.). Be warned, though--this is a pretty long post.

* 2000 (2005 Nadal, 2006 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; depending on his side of the draw, Nadal either loses badly to Kuerten or is crushed by Norman. Kuerten still wins.
- Wimbledon: everyone a non-factor.
- USO: everyone a non-factor.

Tally: Nadal loses 1 slam

* 2001 (2006 Nadal, 2007 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal probably loses to Kuerten (may have a chance, though). Kuerten still wins.
- Wimbledon: everyone a non-factor (Nadal navigates through the draw much better than the other two, but loses badly to either Rafter of Ivanisevic).
- USO: Federer and Nadal a non-factor, a young Djokovic is schooled by either Hewitt or Sampras during the second week.

Tally: Nadal probably loses 1 slam

* 2002 (2007 Nadal, 2008 Djokovic)
- AO: Federer and Nadal a non-factor, Djokovic is crushed by Safin on his way to the final. Johansson still wins (except if Djokovic is on the other side of the draw, in which case Safin gets it).
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal beats Costa. Nadal wins.
- Wimbledon: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; should Nadal land in Nalbandian's part of the draw, he gets schooled big time; on the other half, he may make it to the final if he can navigate through Hewitt and Henman. In case he does, Nalbandian wins the final and gets a slam.
- USO: Federer and Nadal a non-factor; Djokovic goes much farther than the others, but Sampras or Agassi are still too strong for him.

Tally: Djokovic loses 1 slam

* 2003 (2008 Nadal, 2009 Djokovic)
- AO: everyone a non-factor.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal was very strong in 2008, but so was Ferrero in 2003. Probably a toss-up between the two.
- Wimbledon: Djokovic a non-factor; Federer bursts upon the scene, but Nadal is too strong for him. Nadal wins.
- USO: no change, 2009 Djokovic not good enough to deny Roddick his lone slam, not with both Roddick and Nalbandian going far in the draw.

Tally: Nadal loses 1 slam, possibly 2 (1 slam loss counted between this and RG 2001), Federer loses 1 slam

* 2004 (2009 Nadal, 2010 Djokovic)
- AO: Nadal makes SF, but a non-scarred Federer blows him away. If Nadal is on the other side of the draw, he loses to Safin, also in SF. Federer wins.
- RG: Federer and Djokovic a non-factor; Nadal on an iffy year, gets beaten by either Coria or Gaudio. Gaudio wins.
- Wimbledon: no change, Federer just blows everyone away.
- USO: same as Wimbledon. Federer wins easily.

Tally: Nadal loses 2 slams

* 2005 (2010 Nadal, 2011 Djokovic)
- AO: Djokovic has a great run, but he's never beaten Safin and, once again, the Russian prevails after a huge fight. Safin wins.
- RG: Federer makes SF, but the final is contested between Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal plays at a fairly high level, but Djokovic has learned how to beat him consistently. Djokovic wins (and gets his first slam at RG, of all places).
- Wimbledon: no change, Federer just waltzes through the draw despite a strong showing by Nadal (straight-setted in SF) and Djokovic (yet another straight-set win).
- USO: all three are really strong, but Federer beats Djokovic in the semi and Nadal in the final, both in four sets.

Tally: Djokovic loses 2 slams, Nadal loses 3

* 2006 (2011 Nadal, 2012 Djokovic)
- AO: this time, there's no Safin to deny Djokovic, and he beats Federer after a long, bitterly-fought final. Djokovic wins.
- RG: Federer has beaten Nadal in Rome, which gives him the confidence he needs to win the only slam missing on his resume. Federer wins and gets career GS much sooner than in the real world.
- Wimbledon: yet another strong showing by Nadal, to no avail. Federer wins in three easy sets.
- USO: same as Wimbledon, Nadal makes the final, but is beaten by Federer. Federer wins.

Tally: Nadal loses 1 slam

* 2007 (2012 Nadal, 2013 Djokovic)
- AO: both Nadal and Djokovic reach the last four, but Federer makes mincemeat of everyone. Federer wins.
- RG: this one is more of a toss-up. Once again, they all make the last four. Djokovic loses in SF, but let's give this to Nadal (other option being Federer and CYGS).
- Wimbledon: easy win for Federer.
- USO: Djokovic makes the final, but loses to Fed in four closely-fought sets. Federer wins.

Tally: Djokovic loses 1 slam (with a possibility of Nadal losing 1 slam and Federer gaining 1).

* 2008 (2013 Nadal, 2014 Djokovic)
- AO: yet another one that is tough to call. Fed's got mono, and there's no Wawrinka to beat Djokovic, so let's give it to him. Djokovic wins.
- RG: Nadal wins.
- Wimbledon: Federer wins.
- USO: Nadal wins.

Tally: no change

* 2009 (2014 Nadal, 2015 Djokovic)
- AO: a furious five-setter in the final, and in the end, Djokovic prevails against Federer.
- RG: depending on where Djokovic lands, it's either he loses to Fed in SF and then Nadal wins in the final, or he beat Nadal in SF and then loses to Fed. So let's give this one to Nadal, on principle.
- Wimbledon: Djokovic makes the final, but Servebotterer won't be denied.
- USO: Djokovic wins.

Tally: Federer and Djokovic lose 1 slam

* 2010 (2015 Nadal, 2016 Djokovic)
- AO: Federer wins.
- RG: Djokovic wins.
- Wimbledon: with everyone injured or out of sorts, this one goes to the guy who plays Berdych in the final, probably Murray.
- USO: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.

Tally: Federer gains 1 slam, Djokovic loses 1

* 2011 (2016 Nadal, 2017 Djokovic)
- AO: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.
- RG: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.
- Wimbledon: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer injured. Murray wins.
- USO: Nadal and Djokovic out of sorts, Federer wins.

Tally: Federer gains 3 slams

Totals as of 2011, with all of them being 30:
- Nadal: 7 (5 RG, 1 Wimbledon, 1 USO – no CGS) – (will add RG 2012, USO 2012 (ie his 2017) to make it at least 9)
- Djokovic: 6 (3 AO, 2 Wimbledon, 1 USO – no CGS) – (will add ???)
- Federer: 18 (4 AO, 2 RG, 6 Wimbledon, 6 USO – CGS, possible CYGS) – (will add Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015, USO 2015, AO 2017, Wimbledon 2017 to make it at least 24) :eek:

As they say--discuss. :cool:

(Who said 2018 couldn't come soon enough?) :D
Click to expand...
Federer would've won every GS


The End.​
 
KINGROGER said:
Agree with much of this except 2003 Federer beats 2008 Nadal at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

This.

2003 Federer gets so underrated at Wimbledon. People forget how successful Federer was with his forehand + net approach + volley strategy against Nadal on clay in 2006. He was really bringing it to Nadal's backhand. This time, he'd be doing it on grass with his peak volleys and even faster speed. I think 2003 Federer wins in 4 tight sets.
 
Spencer Gore said:
A 36 year old Jimmy Connors would probably have won the majority of games against Borg and McEnroe in their 30s. But would lose the majority of matches at their peak.

Federer has longevity as one of his greatest assets, but at their peak he was the weakest of the big 3. The stats prove it.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ
 
every7 said:
The 2008 version of Nadal potentially loses to Ferrero at 2003 French Open!? Might want to be charitable and let him have that one lol............
Click to expand...

In all fairness, I think Nadal 2008 would probably win this one, but it's not a given as far as I'm concerned, just like it's not a given that 2006 Nadal would beat 2001 Kuerten. So I split those by counting 1 win/1 loss to him. As I said, I've tried to stay unbiased, but this is fantasy tennis, people are bound to have different views/recollections about these imaginary matchups (notice that a couple of posters disagree on my "giving" Wimbledon to 2008 Nadal over 2003 Federer, for example, so to each their own, I guess).

This was just an attempt at trying to make a pretty fair (I think) assessment of what could have happened in such a scenario came to pass, instead of just trolling "My guy would win every match" or "Your guy would lose every match", as some are wont to do. Feel free to disagree, though. :)

(And of course, this only takes into account how they were playing at the time, and changing the dynamic between them could potentially have changed everything, so all this should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.) ;)
 
The real question is the following

Does Andy Roddick still reach the semi's of the 2007 Australian Open, and do we still get that legendary press conference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
How do Federer and Djokovic perform in their 30s if you swap their birthdays?
2
Replies
76
Views
2K
Silentchimera
Silentchimera
M
Interesting thread: what if the Big Three retained their peak level of tennis throughout their entire career without any decline?
Replies
19
Views
567
Sport
Sport
Hitman
The Big 3 and the different combos of consecutive slam wins as it stands
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
Fiero425
Fiero425
MichelaDe
Times Big3 conquered each other's feud or were conquered in their feud
Replies
0
Views
205
MichelaDe
MichelaDe
Hitman
  • Poll Poll
Roland Garros 2011 and Australian Open 2017 - Would you swap the wins if you are a fan of either or both for the DCS?
2
Replies
61
Views
2K
Towny
Towny
Back
Top