Players who's careers has been stolen by Fedalovic

DonDiego

Hall of Fame
Among the guys that could've won many majors if the big three never existed. Names that comes to mind are Ferrer, Berdych, Roddick, Murray of course... Who do you think would have been the GOAT of the 2000-2019 era in that scenario?
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
Murray. He would not have felt he had to kill himself to get to number one. He would have at least 10-12 slams. He would likely still be playing too.

Maybe, I know it sounds crazy... But Nishi. I mean how many QF and SF has he lost to the big 3? Has to be a lot. Imagine his confidence if he won a few. He could have had like 5-7 slams in the absence of the big 3.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Murray's career wasn't stolen by the Big 3. He won 3 slams, 14 masters, the WTF and 2 OSG. He was world number 1 for over 40 weeks. He's included in a 'Big 4' along with the 3 greatest players of the Open Era. Not bad going. Sure, he would have won more, but he would have never been a double digit slam winner in another era.

I would go with a slamless player. Probably Berdych or Ferrer. Could possibly make an argument for Roddick, even though he did manage a slam win.

Edit. After properly reading the OP, I would have to say Murray is easily the one who would have won the most from 2000-2019 and it wouldn't have been close. After him, I would give Hewitt and Roddick a good shot. Hewitt was blocked repeatedly by Federer in 2004-5 so he probably picks up at least a couple of slams there to add to his 2. Roddick maybe gets another 4 slams. After them, probably Berdych.
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Among the guys that could've won many majors if the big three never existed. Names that comes to mind are Ferrer, Berdych, Roddick, Murray of course... Who do you think would have been the GOAT of the 2000-2019 era in that scenario?
I want to know if Zoro gave you permission to post on a tennis site. ;)
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Why in that order?
Because Berdych's trophy cabinet doesn't have a single slam trophy in it (runner up is just first of the losers) and I think he probably could have had at least one.

Roddick seemed to be primed for greatness when Federer came along and beat him so often that Roddick started making jokes about it in his runner up speeches.

Murray for sure would have done more, but it just feels like he did enjoy reasonable success. He may be the best player of those three, but it just feels to me like the other missed out more.
 

Linelicker

Rookie
Wawrinka would have 0 slams, he only wins against Djokodal :)

My vote goes to Berdych. That talent coupled with some confidence would be hard to deal with.
Until Berdych started declining 5 years ago, he knew how to play Murray, especially on clay.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
Tsonga is the first who comes to my mind. Not the most stable player mentally, but big serve, big forehand, solid backhand, can play at the net, good athlete... he was a grand slam material as much as anyone.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I'd go with Murray. Besides the big three, he's been the best player since 2000 and even though he's had a great career given the circumstances, he honestly would've won more in anther era.

Roddick was Federer's main punching bag for years, although he didn't really play Nadal/Djokovic in a lot of meaningful matches as by the time Rafa and Nole hit their stride, Roddick was already on his way out.

Berdych has also been stopped by the big 3/4 a ton. His 2010 run to the Wimbledon finals was the epitome of what its like to play in this era. He shockingly beats Federer in the QF, surprises everyone again by beating Djokovic in the semis and despite playing the best tennis of his life that tourney, he runs into a red hot Nadal who whipped him in straights in the finals...that's the path a mere mortal has to go through in order to win a slam these past 10-15 years

Ferrer was a punching bag to the big 3 and he honestly would've been like this in any era imo. He never had the game to be part of best of the best and although he may have won more Masters titles in other era (especially those on clay), it's not like he'd be some multi-time slam champion like Tsonga and Berdych would have been

Overall imo, I still can't view the next gen players to be better than the likes Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, Del Potro, Roddick, Soderling, Davydenko, etc. considering they all still managed to win some decently big titles and some of those above actually beat them at majors occasionally during their primes (while giving them solid challenges on other occasions), while this "next gen" can't even get the big 3 while all of them are 30+.
 
Last edited:

Linelicker

Rookie
And he only beats them when they´re injured or playing half-form or when they´re nervous about completing the Career Slam...

Stan the Luckanimal.
Not many slams will count if the excuse is more important than the result.

Federer got nervous in Wimbledon = Luckyvic.
Medvedev got nervous in NY = Luckdal.

Stan beat Djokovic + Nadal AO14, Federer + Djokovic RG15, Del Potro + Djokovic USO16 to win his slams.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Not many slams will count if the excuse is more important than the result.

Federer got nervous in Wimbledon = Luckyvic.
Medvedev got nervous in NY = Luckdal.

Stan beat Djokovic + Nadal AO14, Federer + Djokovic RG15, Del Potro + Djokovic USO16 to win his slams.
We are talking about outsiders facing Big 3 in their early slam finales.

Apples and oranges...
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Ferrer for sure. The best #5 ever.
To a lesser degree Murray, because he was able to break past them at times.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Roddick is a tempting answer, but he would have 5 Slams (all US and W) to his current total of 1. He still had a pretty solid career.

Murray is probably the best answer, as he would have 11 GS titles instead of his current 3.

Both of these guys only lost Finals to Federer or Djokovic, Nadal wasn't that big a factor for them.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Roddick is a tempting answer, but he would have 5 Slams (all US and W) to his current total of 1. He still had a pretty solid career.

Murray is probably the best answer, as he would have 11 GS titles instead of his current 3.

Both of these guys only lost Finals to Federer or Djokovic, Nadal wasn't that big a factor for them.
It’s weird that’s Nadal and Muray have never played in a GS final. However, they’ve played each other 6 times in the semis (with Nadal holding a 5-1 record) and the craziest stat of all is that one of them took part in every slam final from AO 2010-RG 2014 and yet they still somehow managed to never cross paths with one another at that stage.
 
Last edited:

Sabrina

Professional
It’s weird that’s Nadal and Muray have never played in a GS final. However, they’ve played each other 6 times in the semis (with Nadal holding a 5-1 record) and the craziest stat is that one of them took part in every slam final from AO 2010-RG 2014 and still they somehow managed to never play each other at that stage.
Murray was basically a few points away from meeting Nadal in a GS Final (at AO 2012 and RG 2017).
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
Among the guys that could've won many majors if the big three never existed. Names that comes to mind are Ferrer, Berdych, Roddick, Murray of course... Who do you think would have been the GOAT of the 2000-2019 era in that scenario?
Federer
 

victorcruz

Hall of Fame
Murray would be goat. He would have like 15+ slams. Although I do think the 3 goats helped make Andy better, he was forced to go that extra mile to compete with them.
 

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
Roddick. Nishikori. Thiem would have 3 RG’s had it not been for Rafa. Daddy Djokovic and Grandpappy Fed feel little Dominic’s pain...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Tsonga is the first who comes to my mind. Not the most stable player mentally, but big serve, big forehand, solid backhand, can play at the net, good athlete... he was a grand slam material as much as anyone.
He won the first set in his only slam finale and had a set point to go up 2-0. If he had won this point, who knows how tennis may have turned out at the top. Djokovic would have lost the match probably and been 0-2 in slam finales.
 

Crisstti

Legend
It’s weird that’s Nadal and Muray have never played in a GS final. However, they’ve played each other 6 times in the semis (with Nadal holding a 5-1 record) and the craziest stat is that one of them took part in every slam final from AO 2010-RG 2014 and yet they still somehow managed to never cross paths with one another at that stage.
Amazing indeed. Reminds me how Germany and Brazil never played in a World Cup game until the 2002 final, despite having won between them 7 out of the 16 tournaments played up to that point, one of them having been in the final in 12 out of the 16 previous editions (three of the exceptions being the pre second world war world cups, so one of them wasn't in the final since 1950 only on 1978), and one or both having been in the semis in 15 out the 16 tournaments.
 

megamind

Hall of Fame
It’s weird that’s Nadal and Muray have never played in a GS final. However, they’ve played each other 6 times in the semis (with Nadal holding a 5-1 record) and the craziest stat is that one of them took part in every slam final from AO 2010-RG 2014 and yet they still somehow managed to never cross paths with one another at that stage.
Because they were both consistently at #2 and #4 so have to play semis
 
Top