Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tenniswriter, Nov 19, 2013.
I would give Roddick quite a few - Federer beat him 7 times in slams, four of those in a final if my memory serves me right. Plus the added confidence and fear-factor it gives to be the top-dog
Here it is:
2003) AO: Agassi RG: Ferrero Wim: Roddick USO: Roddick
2004) AO: Safin/Ferrero/Hewitt RG: Gaudio Wim: Roddick USO: Hewitt/Agassi
2005) AO: Safin RG: Nadal Wim: Roddick/Hewitt USO: Agassi/Hewitt
2006) AO: Davydenko RG: Nadal Wim: Nadal USO: Roddick
2007) AO: Gonzales/Roddick RG: Nadal Wim: Nadal USO: Djokovic/Roddick
2008) AO: Djokovic RG: Querrey Wim: Nadal USO: Djokovic
2009) AO: Nadal RG: Soderling Wim: Roddick USO: Del Potro
2010) AO: Murray/Davydenko RG: Nadal Wim: Nadal USO: Nadal
2011) AO: Djokovic RG: Djokovic Wim: Djokovic USO: Djokovic
2012) AO Djokovic RG: Nadal Wim: Murray USO: Murray
2013) AO: Djokovic RG: Nadal Wim: Murray USO: Nadal
So, the beneficiaries would be:
- Roddick could have 3-4 more Wimbledon, 0-1 more AO, 1-2 more USO. 4-7 more slams in total.
- Djokovic could have 1-2 more USO and one more RG. This RG would have given him the Calendar Grand Slam in 2011.
- Hewitt could have 0-4 more slams, with the USO 2004 and 2005 being his best chances against Agassi.
- Nadal would have won Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007, but would have lost RG 2008 against Querrey (or Montanes).
- other minor possible beneficiaries would be Davydenko, Safin, Ferrero, Gonzales, Soderling, Murray, Agassi, and obviously Sam Querrey.
I say hewitt wins W 2005 and one of the 2 USO's. (either 2004 or 2005).
So 2 more majors for him. I would even give AO 2004 to him. A tired Safin would not have been much of an.issue
djokovic takes USO 2007 and 2008. So 2 more USO's
Nadal takes those 2 W.
Ferrero could have won AO 2004 too, just before his string of illness and injuries.
I am sorry, but if you take Federer out, that dramatically changes everything in tennis. You can't just say who was going to win just on the basis that Federer beat them on route to the title.
With Federer not existing, who knows how the Roddick/Hewitt dynamic would have effected the top spot. How it would have effected Nadal's constantly injured knees, which he almost wore out completely chasing Federer. How quickly Djokovic and Murray would have ascended as slam champion. How many players that didn't win slams, could have, and then gone on to win many more...
Federer defines an entire era, and also influenced in raising the bar, giving the Nadals, the Djokovics, the Murrays and even the Del Potros something to aim for. Making them better.
It just can't be clear cut. Federer's presence has dramatically changed the landscape of tennis, one of the most influential players in the game's history. Who knows what would have truly happened if Roger Federer never existed.
God, it must be boring to be you!
I totally agree with you, but I'll do it for fun anyway.
AO: Hewitt (maybe)
USO: Hewitt (maybe)
AO: I'll give this to Gonzo
Without Federer several players could have won slams and grown in confidence to become better players. Roddick probably would have won multiple Wimbledon's and develop his aggressive game instead of slumping in 05. But I'll simply go on 'who was the most inform player other than Federer'.
2003 Wimbledon- Phillippoussis
2003 U.S Open- Nalbandian (I think beating Roger took something out of his mentally, as well as physically and he had match point vs Roddick anyway)
2004 Australian- Nalbandian
2004 French- Coria (draw changes and Gaudio majorly lucked out anyway)
2004 Wimbledon- Roddick or Hewitt (toss up here IMO)
2004 U.S Open- Agassi
2005 Australian- Safin
2005 French- Nadal
2005 Wimbledon- Hewitt (why on earth is anyone saying Roddick here, he was rubbish at this Wimbledon)
2005 U.S Open- Hewitt
2006 Australian- Haas or Davydenko
2006 French- Nadal
2006 Wimbledon- Ancic
2006 U.S Open- Blake
2007 Australian Open- Gonzalez
2007 French- Nadal
2007 Wimbledon- Nadal
2007 U.S Open- Djokovic
2008 U.S Open- Djokovic
2009 French- Del Potro
2009 Wimbledon- Roddick
2009 U.S Open- Djokovic (Del Potro was not beating Djokovic, Djokovic has always owned him)
2010 Australian- Murray
2012 Wimbledon- Murray
So I would have Roddick still with only 1 or 2 slams overall, and no longer having his U.S Open title.
Nadal still with 14, so barely any difference for him (to be expected as Federer was never a big problem for him anyway)
Hewitt with 5 or 6 slams overall.
Agassi with 10 slams overall.
Ancic, Blake, one of Davydenko or Haas, all with a slam.
Murray with 4 slams now.
Djokovic with 9 slams, and now 4 U.S Opens vs 1.
Del Potro still with just 1 slam, but a different one.
Nalbandian with 2 slams.
Coria with a French Open rather than Gaudio.
In conclusion Roddick, Hewitt and possibly couple other so called weak era players would have between 2 and 5 slams each thus proving that 2003 - 2007 was the strongest era ever since no one could dominate.
So I'm the only one here who think that Federer deprived Djokovic of a calendar slam in 2011?
2003 Wimby: Roddick
2004 AO: Nalby/Hewitt
2004 Wimby: Roddick
2004 US open: Hewitt/Agassi
2005 Wimby: Hewitt
2005 Us Open: Hewitt/Agassi
2006 AO: Davydenko
2006 Wimby: Nadal
2006 US Open: Roddick
2007 AO: Roddick/Gonzo
2007 Wimby: Nadal
2007 US Open: Roddick/Djokovic
2008 US Open: Djokovic
2009 FO: Soderling/Delpo
2009 Wimby: Roddick
2010 AO: Murray
2011 FO: Djokovic
2012 Wimby: Murray
Nope because I don't care if he beats Nadal before the FO (like he did in MC this year) NO ONE gets a free ticket or benefit of the doubt against Nadal at RG, sorry. Beating Nadal in the finals of RG is a different task completely. 2012 and 2013 prove it. Don't give Federer credit for anything, him and Djokovic combined are 0-10 against Nadal at Roland Garros.
Djokovic had Nadal all figured out at the time. Also, consider the fact Nadal played a poor FO (even in the finals against Fed, Fed just choked as usual) while Djokovic kept his level. If it wasn't for GOATing Fed, Djokovic would've probably won the entire tournament.
Didn't even think about it tbh, but yeah I probably would've backed Djokovic to beat Nadal at that time.
Roddick would have won a ton more slams, safin acouple, Gonzales one, bagdatis a couple, Hewitt another two
2003 W: Roddick.
2004 AO: Hewitt.
2004 FO: Gaudio (no change).
2004 W: Roddick/Hewitt.
2004 UO: Hewitt.
2005 AO: Safin (no change).
2005 FO: Nadal (no change).
2005 W: Hewitt.
2005 UO: Agassi.
2006 AO: Baghdatis.
2006 FO: Nadal (no change).
2006 W: Nadal.
2006 UO: Roddick.
2007 AO: Gonzalez.
2007 FO: Nadal (no change).
2007 W: Nadal.
2007 UO: Djokovic.
2008 AO: Djokovic (no change).
2008 FO: Nadal (no change).
2008 UO: Murray.
2009 AO: Nadal (no change).
2009 FO: Soderling.
2009 W: Roddick.
2009 UO: Del Potro (no change).
2010 AO: Murray.
2012 W: Murray.
Roddick would be a multi slam winner then
Nadal wasn't mentally destroyed in 2012 and 2013. In 2011 he had just had 4 straight losses to Novak and was playing one of his worst FO's ever. Djokovic by comparison was playing better than he's ever played. I would have favored Djokovic in that hypothetical final, even Federer had chances to win all 3 of those first sets.
Clearly he beat the bricks out of that boy Roddick, many Federer fans feel pity for Andy, some would've felt OK if he would've won in 2009 just so he can get something out of his confrontations with Roger.
I do wish Andy got a Wimbledon, if won it in 04 he would have returned to #1 and probably not slumped in 05-06. He probably wouldn't changed his game so much. That's the problem with these hypotheticals. Nalbandian would have had a good shot at the AO in 2004 without Federer, all he'd have to do is get through Hewitt. Maybe he'd have turned into a multi slam winner?
Nalbandian would still have to beat Hewitt, Ferrero and Safin. That wouldn't have been so easy.
Overall, if I do think that Roddick's career could have been a lot more different than just adding to his total his defeat to Fed, I don't think it's the case for Nalbandian. Federer didn't have strong effect on his career. Nalbandian was never as driver as other players, he often had shapes issues, injuries, etc.
Had he won an early slam, he would just have been satisfied with himself and focused less on tennis.
Safin was exhausted in the final, he wouldn't have won that slam either way. Nalbandian was in excellent form going into that QF match with Federer so I think he would have handled Ferrero. Hewitt is the only question mark, maybe Hewitt would have the edge as he beat him in 2005 at the AO. Both were playing well at the AO in 2004 so I think the winner of that clash would win the whole thing.
Hewitt would have been one of the top favorites at 3 of the 4 slams in 2004 without Federer (considering what happened on the otherside of the draw);
- The AO with Nalbandian.
- Wimbledon with Roddick.
- USO with Agassi.
Would have have ended up with a Couier level career atleast.
I agree, but Ferrero is too easily discarded because he got ill after that and wasn't a contender anymore. Ferrero was the USO 2003 finalist, beating Agassi and Hewitt en route to the final, and the Madrid 2003 winner (beating Federer en route to the title). He had a poor Master cup but was a top player on hard court at that moment.
Nalbandian was good, but this guy could never be a lock to win a slam. Could lose against anyone.
I discard Ferrero mainly after watching the Semi final with Federer. He played a good first set then fell away in the 2nd before playing a good 3rd set. I don't think that would be enough against Hewitt or Nalbandian. I just don't see him beating either of them based on form. Ferrero was ofcourse excellent up till the beginning of 2004. Had it not been for injuries he would have been a top player for years and years. The first casulty of Federer generation.
Nalbandian was in excellent form at the AO though, consistant or not for that slam he looked like a threat. I think he would have beaten Ferrero and Safin for sure. Hewitt on the other hand I don't know, Hewitt was focused and had got a bit stronger in the off season. It would have been a good match.
Separate names with a comma.