What if Federer had the talent of Dimitrov?

[Sysyphus]

How much would he have won then? Dimitrov is basically a more talented Federer in most aspects of the game. More power from the ground, more power on serve, backhand not as vulnerable to moonballs, quicker, tenfold times fitter, better touch at the net.

Federer is a very scrappy player, like Santoro but with a big serve. He gets overpowered during most points, but sticks around and defends and finds a way to win points anyway (maybe the best defender on tour because of this). He does this through sheer grit and hard work to make up for his lack of talent, and has found a way to keep improving his game even into his mid-thirties. Imagine if he had some talent and natural athleticism to go with this. How many slams would he have then?

 

[metsman]

Tough to say. He is already quite arrogant without talent but is kept down because he knows there are players like dimitrov who are far more talented. If Fedr actually had the talent of Djokovic or Dimitrov his arrogance would know no bounds and it would take away from his junk balling and scrappy style as he would think he was above that. Therefore I think he would lose more. Fedr is so untalented that if he had talent he wouldn't know what to do with it.

 

[ivan_the_terrible]

I voted 24+ - for sure he wouldn't be dropping his (short) balls right into Nole's (back) hands

 

[djokerer]

How much would he have won then? Dimitrov is basically a more talented Federer in most aspects of the game. More power from the ground, more power on serve, backhand not as vulnerable to moonballs, quicker, tenfold times fitter, better touch at the net.

Federer is a very scrappy player, like Santoro but with a big serve. He gets overpowered during most points, but sticks around and defends and finds a way to win points anyway (maybe the best defender on tour because of this). He does this through sheer grit and hard work to make up for his lack of talent, and has found a way to keep improving his game even into his mid-thirties. Imagine if he had some talent and natural athleticism to go with this. How many slams would he have then?

Same.. It was the weak era

 

[Terenigma]

Dimitrov is basically a more talented Federer in most aspects of the game.

Dimitrov is basically a more talented Federer in most aspects of the game.

Dimitrov is basically a more talented Federer in most aspects of the game.

 

[Surion]

Not even a good troll.

 

[Lord Anomander]

 

[TheCanadian]

How much would he have won then? Dimitrov is basically a more talented Federer in most aspects of the game. More power from the ground, more power on serve, backhand not as vulnerable to moonballs, quicker, tenfold times fitter, better touch at the net.

Federer is a very scrappy player, like Santoro but with a big serve. He gets overpowered during most points, but sticks around and defends and finds a way to win points anyway (maybe the best defender on tour because of this). He does this through sheer grit and hard work to make up for his lack of talent, and has found a way to keep improving his game even into his mid-thirties. Imagine if he had some talent and natural athleticism to go with this. How many slams would he have then?

Federe does everything better than Dimitrov and is mentally tougher and a much more serious person, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Krish872007]

Definitely 24+.
With Federer's smarts he already managed to fight and claw his way to 17 even in the weakest era in sports history which is utterly astounding. If you give him even a top 10 forehand and top 20 backhand he may have done a couple of CYGS
In any case, why are we putting obvious limits on Federer's Slam total even now? He's playing the best damn tennis of his life and even though we're in the strongest era ever he might get a few gifts from power hitters. Plus the true best like Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Stan and Berdych rely way too much on talented ballstriking, so they'll surely decline soon.

 

[Sysyphus]

It's incredible what Federer achieved with a 20-30-rank level talent overall, the body of an office temp, and the weakest topspin backhand in the top 100. Simply through an unparalleled amount of hard work. Inspiring to say the least.

Federe does everything better than Dimitrov and is mentally tougher and a much more serious person, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I agree. Federer is incredibly mentally tough and a serious person (meaning hard worker, tactically smart with the junkballing). Incredible to see someone win slams with a pushy Santoro game aided by a big serve and amazing mental strength.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

30+ if Maverick Lord Muzzletoff was not on the scene.

 

[Sysyphus]

30+ if Maverick Lord Muzzletoff was not on the scene.

I agree. Murray displays more talent than Federer in every aspect of the game except for second serves. He also doesn't use the forehand with quite the same junkballing cleverness that Federer does, but he has much more power in it and doesn't get so easily overpowered. Also has a ten times better backhand, more serve power, faster, more endurant, better touch and feel, and so on.

Still though, Murray has won more slams than Fed has in the strong era even though Fed is at his best ever. This means Murray would win probably 20+ in the weak era.

Why isn't Dimitrov winning more slams? Why is it hard for Dimitrov to beat Federer? Takes more than talent sometimes. Monfils is talented, but his head is not 100% into the game.

To be fair, Dimitrov is maybe only about the 10th best talent on tour, so he shouldn't be winning slams. I only picked him because he is a bit above Fed's talent range but not unrealistically so.

 

[WarrenMP]

Why isn't Dimitrov winning more slams? Why is it hard for Dimitrov to beat Federer? Takes more than talent sometimes. Monfils is talented, but his head is not 100% into the game.

 

[Krish872007]

I agree. Murray displays more talent than Federer in every aspect of the game except for second serves. He also doesn't use the forehand with quite the same junkballing cleverness that Federer does, but he has much more power in it and doesn't get so easily overpowered. Also has a ten times better backhand, more serve power, faster, more endurant, better touch and feel, and so on.

Still though, Murray has won more slams than Fed has in the strong era even though Fed is at his best ever. This means Murray would win probably 20+ in the weak era.

To be fair, Dimitrov is maybe only about the 10th best talent on tour, so he shouldn't be winning slams. I only picked him because he is a bit above Fed's talent range but not unrealistically so.

Yeah, Murray has really underachieved given his talent. And bear in mind that players like Murray and Berdych absolutely own Federer when they utilise their talent. Make him look like a child on the court, but lately they've fallen into that trap of junkballing with him and being almost too "nice". Lack of mental strength really.

 

[metsman]

Yeah, Murray has really underachieved given his talent. And bear in mind that players like Murray and Berdych absolutely own Federer when they utilise their talent. Make him look like a child on the court, but lately they've fallen into that trap of junkballing with him and being almost too "nice". Lack of mental strength really.

more than anything I have to give Fed some credit too. Against Berdych and Murray recently he has really upped the junkballing style and this is what leads me to believe this is peak Federer. Before, he would foolishly try to get into ballstriking competitions with them, and as gifted as they are no way they are losing that. However recently he has done a great job of just not hitting anything more than 55 mph and letting them beat themselves. Now Berdych and Murray have declined so no doubt in their peaks they would still find a way, strong era mental toughness stalwarts that they are. However, as is clear as day, peak Federer still doesn't work against Djoker as Djoker both as the talent to overpower and blow away Fedr and the variety to out junk-ball him too.

 

[La Grande]

lol

 

[Deleted member 293577]

I think the better question may be when will Dmitrov be able to beat Federer on sheer talent alone? It's really hard to say since, well, he hasn't done it yet. Now, granted he has won 2 out of the 13 sets they've played against one another, it still seems hard to predict when, or if, he will be able to win a match. This is indeed food for thought.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-grigor-dimitrov/F324/D875

 

[RSH]

I dunno man. It's lacking the total conviction of his statements as well as the utter shock and disdain at differing opinions.

 

[nowhereman]

Definitely would've won 24+. Federer, even with his scrappy, junkballing style, has managed to win 17 slams. If he had a decent forehand and didn't have to rely on grinding and junkballing all the time, he definitely would have won more. And this is if he had the talent of a guy like Dimitrov, lets not get into the amount of damage Fed could have done if he had the talent of the two most talented guys who ever played, Djokovic and Nadal. But then again, why are you assuming he won't get to 24+ now, through hard work? Federer is nearly at his peak right now, after all. Yeah, the competition is extremely strong, but an ultra hard worker like Fed will find a way to win more. Just give it some time, no need to resort to hypotheticals like these.

 

[Deleted member 293577]

Federer is nearly at his peak right now, after all.

I would say very close... If he had a little something extra, maybe a serve to rely on to pull him out of some of those points when his opponents figure out his junkballs. Maybe then, we could start having this discussion. But for now, the OPs speculation would appear to be on firm ground.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

If Fed had Dimis mental strength, I bet he'd have beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007

 

[metsman]

If Fed had Dimis mental strength, I bet he'd have beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007

Supposedly sarcastic yet really a dumbass dig on Federer. Well done...we were having fun on this thread too

 

[metsman]

Definitely would've won 24+. Federer, even with his scrappy, junkballing style, has managed to win 17 slams. If he had a decent forehand and didn't have to rely on grinding and junkballing all the time, he definitely would have won more. And this is if he had the talent of a guy like Dimitrov, lets not get into the amount of damage Fed could have done if he had the talent of the two most talented guys who ever played, Djokovic and Nadal. But then again, why are you assuming he won't get to 24+ now, through hard work? Federer is nearly at his peak right now, after all. Yeah, the competition is extremely strong, but an ultra hard worker like Fed will find a way to win more. Just give it some time, no need to resort to hypotheticals like these.

tough to say. At long last Federer has met his match. While Nadal trounces him in talent, he did not have the health and variety to counter Fed in junkballing. Novack however has the talent to trounce him in ball striking but also the variety to out junkball him. Very tough for Fedr to beat that, a guy who is better at everything. The only advantage had is in servebotting but as the AO match showed, that gap is closing too. Nole always had a better pure serve and now he is finding the consistency with Becker. At the end of the day the other guy simply is better and more talented and you can play as well as you want without success.

 

[Sysyphus]

tough to say. At long last Federer has met his match. While Nadal trounces him in talent, he did not have the health and variety to counter Fed in junkballing. Novack however has the talent to trounce him in ball striking but also the variety to out junkball him. Very tough for Fedr to beat that, a guy who is better at everything. The only advantage had is in servebotting but as the AO match showed, that gap is closing too. Nole always had a better pure serve and now he is finding the consistency with Becker. At the end of the day the other guy simply is better and more talented and you can play as well as you want without success.

Let's be real, though — Federer adapting a scrappy Santoro-like game is the only reason he ever scored any wins versus Djokovic at all.

 

[nowhereman]

tough to say. At long last Federer has met his match. While Nadal trounces him in talent, he did not have the health and variety to counter Fed in junkballing. Novack however has the talent to trounce him in ball striking but also the variety to out junkball him. Very tough for Fedr to beat that, a guy who is better at everything. The only advantage had is in servebotting but as the AO match showed, that gap is closing too. Nole always had a better pure serve and now he is finding the consistency with Becker. At the end of the day the other guy simply is better and more talented and you can play as well as you want without success.

Very good points. Djokovic, being infinitely more talented than Federer, will have a much easier time winning big tournaments and outplaying Federer at his own game. Federer, although working harder than ever, has limits and can only get so far with junkballing. Even though Fed is getting better and better and is nearly at his peak, we just have to accept that Djokovic has his number.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

2-3 slems.

 

[Legend of Borg]

i vote an 8/8

very subtle trolling with a hint of suresh

almost like it's 2010 all over again

 

[I am the Greatest!]

What? Federer has no ****ing talent at all. How can you consider someone like him having talent? He's on his peak and only has 2 slams since 2010. Are you kidding me? He's a one dimensional player: a servebot. And there are 100 active players who are better a server than him, especially Nadal. The reason why he was able to beat Murray again and again is that Murray is always injured when facing Roger. Remember 2015 Wimbledon semis? Murray can't even walk damn it! Federer has no ****ing talent at all.

 

[oble]