Rafa - 2004 to 2097

A

Aneto

Professional
if Rafa played in that period, 2004 to 2007, without Federer, how many Slams do you think he would get?
Discuss
 
Not even 3, that he had won with Fed doing the dirty work for him @ French Open.
Fed wouldn't have blocked those clay specialists who could've had a shot at the Bull....
 
Last edited:
KINGROGER said:
No excuse for Nadal's bad performance in 2012-2015 he could have grabbed 2013 vs Murray who he owns on grass. The other years I'd favour Federer or Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Idk, Nadal had a great chance in 2014, and I do think about what would have happened if Gasquet knew how to convert match points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K-H
2097??? I have no idea.

OK, just for fun, lets actually take a look at how many slams were won by the big three during the so called strong years, that some people speak about here.

Strong years according to some here are 2008-2009, and 2011-2013. All slams won outside of this are considered weak era.

Federer won USO 08, RG 09, W 09, AO 10, W 12 = 5 slams
Nadal won RG 08, W 08, AO 09, RG 11, RG 12, RG 13, USO 13 = 7 slams
Djokovic won AO 08, AO 11, W 11, USO 11, AO 12, AO 13 = 6 slams

That looks almost even to me, so it does not seem like a massive difference in the amount of strong slams they each have, that were won during the strong years. Heck, even Murray has 2 in that time.

Edit - Just notice something interesting here, Federer and Nadal were locked at 5 strong slams each after 2012. It was 2013 that created the 2 slam difference. USO 13 was to break the tie between Nadal and Djokovic, both were deadlocked at six strong slams each heading into that final.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
abmk said:
great chance ?
He'd have to go through Raonic, Federer AND Djokovic.

if you call that a great chance, you must in some la la land.
Click to expand...

Nadal was playing well in 2014 and in the second week he'd have been dangerous, Federer and Raonic or not.
 
2004 - zero
2005 - he lost to Muller, Blake - still 1
2006 - didnt play AO, would have met Nalbandian and if the later was fit could have troubled him, he wins Wimbledon with the same draw, Us Open lost to Youzhny. At the end maybe two Slams but once again Nalbandian have the skills to beat him at RG
2007 - lost to Gonzo, takes RG + Wimbledon, lost to Ferrer

I think that he would probably get one more Slam than his actual count but in the end those kind of predictions are impossible. Without Federer - the rankings are different, the seedings, opponents like Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko would be better overall and with more confidence. For example, if not Fed in 2011 Djokovic would have beated Nadal at RG ..
 
MichaelNadal said:
Nadal was playing well in 2014 and in the second week he'd have been dangerous, Federer and Raonic or not.
Click to expand...

he couldn't handle a servebotting Kyrgios.
its no guarantee he'd handle servebot Raonic on grass that year , let alone federer + djokovic later on.

oh and the 4th round match vs Kyrgios was in the 2nd week.
 
Hitman said:
2097??? I have no idea.

OK, just for fun, lets actually take a look at how many slams were won by the big three during the so called strong years, that some people speak about here.

Strong years according to some here are 2008-2009, and 2011-2013. All slams won outside of this are considered weak era.

Federer won USO 08, RG 09, W 09, AO 10, W 12 = 5 slams
Nadal won RG 08, W 08, AO 09, RG 11, RG 12, RG 13, USO 13 = 7 slams
Djokovic won AO 08, AO 11, W 11, USO 11, AO 12, AO 13 = 6 slams

That looks almost even to me, so it does not seem like a massive difference in the amount of strong slams they each have, that were won during the strong years. Heck, even Murray has 2 in that time.

Edit - Just notice something interesting here, Federer and Nadal were locked at 5 strong slams each after 2012. It was 2013 that created the 2 slam difference. USO 13 was to break the tie between Nadal and Djokovic, both were deadlocked at six strong slams each heading into that final.
Click to expand...

Why are you counting Fed's 2010 AO?

Also, 2014 was pretty decent too until the US Open. You should be adding RG14 for Nadal and WIM14 for Novak.
 
abmk said:
he couldn't handle a servebotting Kyrgios.
its no guarantee he'd handle servebot Raonic on grass that year , let alone federer + djokovic later on.

oh and the 4th round match vs Kyrgios was in the 2nd week.
Click to expand...

Another case of these clowns not being able to read.

@MichaelNadal said he would be a great CHANCE he did not guarantee anything ffs you insecure Fed worshippers!
 
If Rafa is still winning Slams in 2097, he'll surely be the greatest tennis player who ever set foot on court. I don't see his knees lasting that long.
However, with advancing medical knowledge and scientific breakthroughs, it's possible, I suppose.
 
The_Order said:
Why are you counting Fed's 2010 AO?

Also, 2014 was pretty decent too until the US Open. You should be adding RG14 for Nadal and WIM14 for Novak.
Click to expand...

I am happy to take out AO 2010, lets take that one out for Federer. However, you are the only one here who is saying 2014 was strong era, the general consensus said by many is that 2014 was weak, so any and all slams won in 2014 are weak era slams. I am going with the overall general belief.

Revised look at Strong Era slams
Federer has 4 strong slams
Nadal has 7 strong slams
Djokovic has 6 strong slams
Murray has 2 strong slams

Seems like quite a tight distribution of slams, and to be fair looks quite competitive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xavier G said:
If Rafa is still winning Slams in 2097, he'll surely be the greatest tennis player who ever set foot on court. I don't see his knees lasting that long.
However, with advancing medical knowledge and scientific breakthroughs, it's possible, I suppose.
Click to expand...

If Rafa is still winning slams in 2097, I doubt any of us here will be alive to see his retirement speech then...And he probably would have his body experimented on after he passes.
 
Between 2004 and 2007, Nadal won 16 Slams - both morally and in practice.

Between 2004 and 2097, he will win 376 moral Slams. The only thing that might prevent him converting that into 376 Slams in the record books is if the world cheats him of it. For example, there might be a world war, in which case Nadal might not be able to win all the Slams he is entitled to, because some of them might be canceled. That would be most unfair, of course, so let's hope that world leaders bear Nadal's moral career in mind when deciding whether to wage war or not.
 
Hitman said:
I am happy to take out AO 2010, lets take that one out for Federer. However, you are the only one here who is saying 2014 was strong era, the general consensus said by many is that 2014 was weak, so any and all slams won in 2014 are weak era slams. I am going with the overall general belief.

Revised look at Strong Era slams
Federer has 4 strong slams
Nadal has 7 strong slams
Djokovic has 6 strong slams
Murray has 2 strong slams

Seems like quite a tight distribution of slams, and to be fair looks quite competitive.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree. AO had Stan playing at his best, Kei and Dimi played some of their best tennis, Fed was getting back to form took out Tsonga and Murray, Nadal made the final playing some really good tennis till he did his back. RG14 was more a contested final than RG09 where Fed didn't have any of the top level opponents. WIM14 was a 5 set highly contested final. Nothing weak there. US open was when things started to go downhill.
 
The_Order said:
Well I disagree. AO had Stan playing at his best, Kei and Dimi played some of their best tennis, Fed was getting back to form took out Tsonga and Murray, Nadal made the final playing some really good tennis till he did his back. RG14 was more a contested final than RG09 where Fed didn't have any of the top level opponents. WIM14 was a 5 set highly contested final. Nothing weak there. US open was when things started to go downhill.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you are the one poster who does. General consensus here is that 2014 is weak era, so I will not reward slams from that year according to the general consensus, that includes RG 14 and W 14. Regarding RG 09, you and I will just disagree on that statement, since Del Potro was taking Federer to the cleaners, and then went onto beat him in a slam final only a few months later.

Strong slam count according to the majority here is Nadal 7, Djokovic 6, Federer 4, Murray 2, since years include 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Lets not make this anymore than what it is.
 
Zara said:
helter, you do know that the only thing missing in your life is a humble picture of Nadal in your avatar. :p
Click to expand...

I considered adding one, but then I thought that it might turn out to be idolatrous to do so, because it seems to me highly plausible that Nadal may turn out to be not merely human but in fact divine, and it would not do for a mere mortal such as myself to post a photo of such a being, no matter how humble my picture were.
 
Hitman said:
Like I said, you are the one poster who does. General consensus here is that 2014 is weak era, so I will not reward slams from that year according to the general consensus, that includes RG 14 and W 14. Regarding RG 09, you and I will just disagree on that statement, since Del Potro was taking Federer to the cleaners, and then went onto beat him in a slam final only a few months later.

Strong slam count according to the majority here is Nadal 7, Djokovic 6, Federer 4, Murray 2, since years include 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Lets not make this anymore than what it is.
Click to expand...

Why are you getting upset? It's clear that Nadal and Novak were playing higher level tennis than Federer and Delpo were at RG09. Gulbis played the best RG tournament of his career taking Fed down in 5 and pushing Novak in the semis.

You don't want to include it because it then makes it 8 Nadal, 7 Novak and 4 Fed so Nadal and Novak nearly both double what Fed won which softens your point.

BTW WIM 14 wasn't weak either.

I doubt I'm the only person who thinks that. The only people who do are the Fed fans because he didn't win anything in 2014.
 
The_Order said:
Why are you getting upset? It's clear that Nadal and Novak were playing higher level tennis than Federer and Delpo were at RG09. Gulbis played the best RG tournament of his career taking Fed down in 5 and pushing Novak in the semis.

You don't want to include it because it then makes it 8 Nadal, 7 Novak and 4 Fed so Nadal and Novak nearly both double what Fed won which softens your point.

BTW WIM 14 wasn't weak either.

I doubt I'm the only person who thinks that. The only people who do are the Fed fans because he didn't win anything in 2014.
Click to expand...

I am not getting upset, do NOT assume that. Shall I say your response to that post and that fact you are trying to drag this out with me shows you are upset? It's a tennis forum, big deal.

As I said, the general consensus here is that 2008 - 2009, 2011 - 2013 are considered strong years. The majority here continue to say that, don't believe me, there are thousands of threads that state that here. You doubting it, is your one opinion among the many that say 2014 was weak. I am going by what the majority said, how is that me getting upset....don't turn this into something this is not. I am not the person you should be doing that with.

Let me now also clear something up with you, this is NOT my opinion. For me a slam is a slam, and you know I have said that many times, I treat them all equally. Even when you were going on about USO17 being weak, I defended it, and said it is what it is, all slams are equal, and you play the whole field, and it is a last man standing tournament. You and I have different view points, don't get agitated by that, when you know full well that all this is subjective, and yes, so is that point you decided to argue with me about regarding RG 14, when one player had a bad back and one player was clearly sick imo, was tougher than when two players who were perfectly healthy and in form were in 09. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but it is my opinion and my point stands....Your own VB members and along with Fed fans complain how weak 2014-2016 were, I certainly don't. Now, I am not going to go round and round in circles with you, and you know that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Order said:
Why are you getting upset? It's clear that Nadal and Novak were playing higher level tennis than Federer and Delpo were at RG09. Gulbis played the best RG tournament of his career taking Fed down in 5 and pushing Novak in the semis.

You don't want to include it because it then makes it 8 Nadal, 7 Novak and 4 Fed so Nadal and Novak nearly both double what Fed won which softens your point.

BTW WIM 14 wasn't weak either.

I doubt I'm the only person who thinks that. The only people who do are the Fed fans because he didn't win anything in 2014.
Click to expand...
In that case, let's also add Fed's AO 2017 as a strong win. It was tougher than any slam in 2014. So that leaves Fed with at least 5 strong slam wins.

Also Wimb 2007 and USO 2007 are also strong wins for Fed. Who said that only since 2008 the wins are strong?
 
mike danny said:
In that case, let's also add Fed's AO 2017 as a strong win. It was tougher than any slam in 2014. So that leaves Fed with at least 5 strong slam wins.

Also Wimb 2007 and USO 2007 are also strong wins for Fed. Who said that only since 2008 the wins are strong?
Click to expand...

This was Hitman's original time line. He said that majority believe 2008-09 and 2011-13 are the strongest years so he only counted slams from there.

No point in considering 2017 and 2007 because then it just turns into considering the whole thing and we've already concluded that while this year's easy wins for Nadal have evened things up, he's still had it slightly tougher than Federer did to win his first 16.
 
Hitman said:
I am not getting upset, do NOT assume that. Shall I say your response to that post and that fact you are trying to drag this out with me shows you are upset? It's a tennis forum, big deal.

As I said, the general consensus here is that 2008 - 2009, 2011 - 2013 are considered strong years. The majority here continue to say that, don't believe me, there are thousands of threads that state that here. You doubting it, is your one opinion among the many that say 2014 was weak. I am going by what the majority said, how is that me getting upset....don't turn this into something this is not. I am not the person you should be doing that with.

Let me now also clear something up with you, this is NOT my opinion. For me a slam is a slam, and you know I have said that many times, I treat them all equally. Even when you were going on about USO17 being weak, I defended it, and said it is what it is, all slams are equal, and you play the whole field, and it is a last man standing tournament. You and I have different view points, don't get agitated by that, when you know full well that all this is subjective, and yes, so is that point you decided to argue with me about regarding RG 14, when one player had a bad back and one player was clearly sick imo, was tougher than when two players who were perfectly healthy and in form were in 09. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but it is my opinion and my point stands....Your own VB members and along with Fed fans complain how weak 2014-2016 were, I certainly don't. Now, I am not going to go round and round in circles with you, and you know that.
Click to expand...

You don't have to go around in circles. I don't understand the reasoning behind 2014 slams being considered weak until the US Open because that's the only slam that had an overall weak level of play. In RG09, Delpo wasn't perfectly healthy he was gassed (commentators even mentioned that) and Federer was patchy with his play until the final. I'd say it's more like 8 - Rafa, 7 - Novak and 4 - Fed because the first 3 majors from 2014 deserve to be included. If you disagree that's fine, but as you said it's all subjective and while your opinion stands so will mine.
 
The_Order said:
You don't have to go around in circles. I don't understand the reasoning behind 2014 slams being considered weak until the US Open because that's the only slam that had an overall weak level of play. In RG09, Delpo wasn't perfectly healthy he was gassed (commentators even mentioned that) and Federer was patchy with his play until the final. I'd say it's more like 8 - Rafa, 7 - Novak and 4 - Fed because the first 3 majors from 2014 deserve to be included. If you disagree that's fine, but as you said it's all subjective and while your opinion stands so will mine.
Click to expand...
If 2014 gets to be included, then so should 2007. I don't see how 2014 was the stronger season.
 
The_Order said:
This was Hitman's original time line. He said that majority believe 2008-09 and 2011-13 are the strongest years so he only counted slams from there.

No point in considering 2017 and 2007 because then it just turns into considering the whole thing and we've already concluded that while this year's easy wins for Nadal have evened things up, he's still had it slightly tougher than Federer did to win his first 16.
Click to expand...
All this strong slam wins thing is silly anyway.

Players can have tough slams in weak years and weak slams in strong years. A strong year doesn't guarantee equal strength among all slams.
 
The_Order said:
You don't have to go around in circles. I don't understand the reasoning behind 2014 slams being considered weak until the US Open because that's the only slam that had an overall weak level of play. In RG09, Delpo wasn't perfectly healthy he was gassed (commentators even mentioned that) and Federer was patchy with his play until the final. I'd say it's more like 8 - Rafa, 7 - Novak and 4 - Fed because the first 3 majors from 2014 deserve to be included. If you disagree that's fine, but as you said it's all subjective and while your opinion stands so will mine.
Click to expand...

If you don't agree with the majority of people on these boards then go tell them, including your own Nadal fans who state 2014 was weak. How many times do you want me to say that I do NOT adhere to strong era weak era theories, so telling me your opinion on 2014 does not change the point I am making, because it is NOT my opinion. You know full well I don't. I have basically summed up what most here say, so you have a bone to pick, go tell them. The time line is 2008-2009 and 2011-2013, the timeline that most will say is strong, and according to that it is Nadal 7 Djokovic 6 Federer 4 and Murray 2. You can have your own numbers, nothing stopping you, but that is not the general agreement here by Fedal fans. The numbers I gave are.
 
Hitman said:
If you don't agree with the majority of people on these boards then go tell them, including your own Nadal fans who state 2014 was weak. How many times do you want me to say that I do NOT adhere to strong era weak era theories, so telling me your opinion on 2014 does not change the point I am making, because it is NOT my opinion. You know full well I don't. I have basically summed up what most here say, so you have a bone to pick, go tell them. The time line is 2008-2009 and 2011-2013, the timeline that most will say is strong, and according to that it is Nadal 7 Djokovic 6 Federer 4 and Murray 2. You can have your own numbers, nothing stopping you, but that is not the general agreement here by Fedal fans. The numbers I gave are.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're referring to 'fans' or trolls here?

I don't get why you'd even bring up all this strong slam stuff in the first place since you don't even believe in it.
 
The_Order said:
Are you sure you're referring to 'fans' or trolls here?

I don't get why you'd even bring up all this strong slam stuff in the first place since you don't even believe in it.
Click to expand...

I will leave the out if they are trolls or fans I am referring to, you are smart enough to see that for yourself, I am sure.

And don't stress out too much about why I brought it up. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skypadq
is really that roger federer played weak era ( 2004 ~ 2007 ) ?
2 3
Replies
135
Views
10K
stormholloway
stormholloway
Revenant
An interesting parallel: Federer from 2004-2007 and Nadal on Clay
4 5 6
Replies
269
Views
15K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
tennisaddict
  • Poll Poll
How many majors would Rafa win in his career if he peaked in 2004 ?
Replies
34
Views
2K
Rafa the King
Rafa the King
YodaKnowsBest
  • Poll Poll
How many slams for Federer?
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
YodaKnowsBest
YodaKnowsBest
Radobg
only if.....
Replies
16
Views
1K
Radobg
Radobg
Back
Top