What is the GS totals of the Big 3 if Djokovic's and Federer's age were swapped?

WildRevolver

Semi-Pro
Would it still be 20-20-20 if Djokovic was in his early 20's in 2003 and Federer and Nadal arrived later on? Does Fed with more than 20? Does Djokovic win fewer? How is Nadal affected?

I think Fed wins the GS race somewhat comfortably (3-4), but Nadal still wins roughly the same amount of FO's (maybe more in the last 3/4 of his career vs. the first 1/4), but maybe only gets one Wimbledon (if any). In a reversal of fortunes, Fed takes Australia and Wimbledon away from Nole as he comes into his prime. The USO remains a somewhat neutral GS, but with Nole having a slight edge in total wins there from the weak era preceding Fed and Nadal's arrival.

IMO:
Fed: 23
Rafa: 18
Novak: 15

Fed gets 1 CYGS, if not 2.
 
Last edited:

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Loooot of different variables at play here, mainly surface speeds and racket technology. RA surface at AO != plexicushion AO for example.

additionally does the gluten free diagnosis happen in 2004? Does it ever happen? How about the egg?
what racket does Federer grow up playing with? How about Djokovic’s racket? How is his hunger affected in his 30s vs Novak/Rafa’s hunger for the game? Does Boris Becker coach Djokovic? How do the NextGens develop in the next couple years? Does Rolex still sponsor Federer?

Does Fed get mono? Does Novak gain even more mental strength from growing up in an even more war-torn Yugoslavia? How does the Fedal rivalry evolve when they are the same age? Does Andy Roddick fire Brad Gilbert or stay with him? Does Andy Murray become an ATG?

Find out next on Dragon-Ball Z.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Novak would face tough challenge from Safin-Hewitt-Roddick and by the time he subdued them on Hard Courts and started to learn how to play on Grass teenage Nadal would arrive, Nadal would thrash Novak and win wimbledon 2-3 times before peak Federer arrived in 2009-2010, then the entire 2010s decade Federer would dominate mercilessly butchering Novak and Nadal.

Novak would be on something like 7-8 slams (similar to Agassi), Nadal would still reach 14+ and Federer would today would be on 20-25 slams and even in the 2020s decade he would be looking forward to add more slams

Federer would probably retire with 30-35 slams in 2025 or 2026 out of boredom.
 

ffw2

Rookie
In the instance that Federer gets to feast on the weakest era in the modern history of professional tennis...

With zero ATGs on his tail...

You'd need to give him a minimum tally of 75 Jams. :notworthy:
 

goldengate14

Semi-Pro
Would it still be 20-20-20 if Djokovic was in his early 20's in 2003 and Federer and Nadal arrived later on? Does Fed with more than 20? Does Djokovic win fewer? How is Nadal affected?

I think Fed wins the GS race somewhat comfortably (3-4), but Nadal still wins roughly the same amount of FO's (maybe more in the last 3/4 of his career vs. the first 1/4), but maybe only gets one Wimbledon (if any). In a reversal of fortunes, Fed takes Australia and Wimbledon away from Nole as he comes into his prime. The USO remains a somewhat neutral GS, but with Nole having a slight edge in total wins there from the weak era preceding Fed and Nadal's arrival.

IMO:
Fed: 23
Rafa: 18
Novak: 15
Probably not a bad shout that.
Federer and Nadal are quite comfortably the greatest to play the game. Federer and Nadal at their very peak did not get routined by guys without a slam in a major final on heir best surface and that has happened more than once to Djokovic.
Federer at 34 with this version of Nadal as a rival(he is still awesome but would not have the tools to beat Federer due to his movement decline) and Tsistsipas Zverev and Medvedev as his rivals and Djokovic at 40 would quite probably have won every Major in 2020 and 2021. Id say it would be
Federer 27
Nadal 19
Djokovic 16.
If Federer gets his knees sorted out ans gets some form i think he could win Wimbledon in 2022. I can well see a scenerio where Nadal and Federer win FO and W next season if both get fit.
 

goldengate14

Semi-Pro
Novak would face tough challenge from Safin-Hewitt-Roddick and by the time he subdued them on Hard Courts and started to learn how to play on Grass teenage Nadal would arrive, Nadal would thrash Novak and win wimbledon 2-3 times before peak Federer arrived in 2009-2010, then the entire 2010s decade Federer would dominate mercilessly butchering Novak and Nadal.

Novak would be on something like 7-8 slams (similar to Agassi), Nadal would still reach 14+ and Federer would today would be on 20-25 slams and even in the 2020s decade he would be looking forward to add more slams

Federer would probably retire with 30-35 slams in 2025 or 2026 out of boredom.
Hard to argue with most of that.
I have seen all i need to see when considering goat claims. There is no scenario where Federer at 34 gets straight shellacked by Medvedev. Neither does Nadal.
Federer pretty much has said this very cleverly. While seemingly praising Djokovic yesterday he did say CYGS is possible. He never ever said that in his career. He basically was saying its a weak era.
He sounded so upbeat yesterday. Most upbeat for a while.
 

BlueB

Legend
About 30 Djokovic, 12 Nadal, 8 Federer.
Ned gets crushed by more experienced Djo a lot in the beginning of the career, even on clay. Fed gets crushed by both, until fully developed. Eventually Nole retires at large margin, so the other 2 have to deal only with each other.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
So Djokovic is 5 years older than Nadal, 6 than Federer. Seeing as Federer truly came onto the scene in a big way was 2003 at Wimbledon, that's bumped back to 2009 Wimbledon. Before that he has next to no impact.

Djokovic's 2006 would coincide with 2000. Djokovic in 2006-2008 RG had a streak of losses only to Nadal, so it stands to reason he'd do at least as well in 2000-2002. I'd say he picks up one of 00/01 RGs and also 02 RG. 03-04 he had those losses, so I won't count any RG as his. However, 05 is interesting. He meets Nadal at this RG in his 2011 form. I would say that Novak wins this historic encounter. I would also say that this probably changes their rivalry, as Nadal couldn't snowball against Djokovic mentally like he did against Federer. However, I digress. In terms of RGs, I would say Novak wins 00/01, 02, 05, loses 08 (nobody beats Nadal there), wins 09, and never wins again. 5 RGs.

Djokovic also picks up AOs. 2002 easily, then perhaps 05 against Safin? Tough to say in 05 Safin vs 11 Djokovic. Would be a classic though. Takes 06, 07, 08, perhaps 09 but I'll give it to Nadal, and then he fades. 2004 Federer beats 2016 Djokovic, then there's no way he beats 2005-2009 Fed there anymore. 5 AOs.

At Wimbledon, it's tougher. He fails to win Wimbledon once Federer arrives, in 09, so he has from 00-09 to take as much as he can. In 08, does he beat Nadal? Unlikely, as that's 2014 for Djokovic against the best grass Nadal. 07, does he beat Nadal? Possibly. Depends a lot on draw, but I'd favor Nadal in the match. 06, this one Novak wins. Nadal was the biggest hurdle and Novak would play well enough to stop him. 05, Novak plays in 2011 form. No one beats him. 04, Novak plays in 2010 form, so Roddick beats him, probably, or Hewitt - still, he's got a chance. 03 is a great chance and the competition wasn't great but neither was he - 50-50. 02, it would be tough to beat Hewitt, especially since 08 Novak lost to 08 Safin who lost to 08 Federer, but possible. 01 is another possibility, but is he beating Goran in his 07 form? Probably not. If we add all that together, it's between 2-7, but around 4 if we account for upsets.

USO. 09, he's facing Delpo in his '15 form. Possible, but tough to say. 08, he's facing Murray in his 2014 form. 50-50 to say he loses like he did to Nishikori in 2014. 07, he faces Roddick or Davydenko in his '13 form. He wins. 06, faces Roddick in his 2012 form, but no exhausting match right before. He wins. 05, he's in his 2011 form against Agassi. He wins. 04, he's in 2010 form against Hewitt. He wins. Loses 02-03. Hewitt probably wins 01. 3-6 USOs. My guess is 5.

Djokovic would have around 19 slams.

Nadal would lose 05 RG, but gain 07 Wimby until 2009.

Then 2010 happens. Federer would have won Wimby 09, then absolutely pushed out Nadal in 2010. Federer takes Wimbledon and USO, fails at RG.
09: Wimby
2010: AO, Wimby (probably, but maybe Nadal?) , USO
11: AO, Wimby, USO
12: AO, Wimby, USO
13: AO, Wimby, USO (At this point I'll take one of these last 9 slams away because he'll get upset somewhere by someone (perhaps Stan at AO 13, but 70-30).)
14: Perhaps loses AO to Stan, perhaps not. 70-30. Wimbledon he wins again, USO he wins easily.
15: AO, again 70-30 against Stan (not a matchup issue for him), Wimby easy, USO.
16: AO, RG, USO. (Let's say Murray gets Wimby)
17: AO (11 Fed > 17 Fed), Wimby, USO (Weak USO, easy pickup)
18: AO, Wimby, USO (not as weak, but not strong enough)
19: AO before he's taken out of action
20: AO, USO
21: Wimby, USO

Total: 10 AOs, 2 RG, 10 Wimbledons, 11 USOs. 33 slams.

Let's say Stan wins 1 of those 3 matches against him. Let's say Murray somehow takes an AO. Let's assume he never bests Nadal at RG even though 05-08 Nadal is better than 11-14 Nadal. Then let's sprinkle in 4 random upsets. He still somehow ends up with 26 slams.


Nadal:
AO: 09
RG: 06, 07, 08, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
WIM: 07, 08, 19
USO: None.
Total: 17 slams.

Federer was very unlucky that Nadal and Novak came up when they did, because what's special about him is that he was a late bloomer and lasted extremely long. That was a recipe for just the odd win in the Djokodal era, but would be a recipe for a decade of dominance in this new post-Djokovic era. If Federer and Djokovic switched, Djokovic would be on-par or slightly below what he has now, Nadal would be slightly less than now, and Federer would be massively ahead.
 
So Djokovic is 5 years older than Nadal, 6 than Federer. Seeing as Federer truly came onto the scene in a big way was 2003 at Wimbledon, that's bumped back to 2009 Wimbledon. Before that he has next to no impact.

Djokovic's 2006 would coincide with 2000. Djokovic in 2006-2008 RG had a streak of losses only to Nadal, so it stands to reason he'd do at least as well in 2000-2002. I'd say he picks up one of 00/01 RGs and also 02 RG. 03-04 he had those losses, so I won't count any RG as his. However, 05 is interesting. He meets Nadal at this RG in his 2011 form. I would say that Novak wins this historic encounter. I would also say that this probably changes their rivalry, as Nadal couldn't snowball against Djokovic mentally like he did against Federer. However, I digress. In terms of RGs, I would say Novak wins 00/01, 02, 05, loses 08 (nobody beats Nadal there), wins 09, and never wins again. 5 RGs.

Djokovic also picks up AOs. 2002 easily, then perhaps 05 against Safin? Tough to say in 05 Safin vs 11 Djokovic. Would be a classic though. Takes 06, 07, 08, perhaps 09 but I'll give it to Nadal, and then he fades. 2004 Federer beats 2016 Djokovic, then there's no way he beats 2005-2009 Fed there anymore. 5 AOs.

At Wimbledon, it's tougher. He fails to win Wimbledon once Federer arrives, in 09, so he has from 00-09 to take as much as he can. In 08, does he beat Nadal? Unlikely, as that's 2014 for Djokovic against the best grass Nadal. 07, does he beat Nadal? Possibly. Depends a lot on draw, but I'd favor Nadal in the match. 06, this one Novak wins. Nadal was the biggest hurdle and Novak would play well enough to stop him. 05, Novak plays in 2011 form. No one beats him. 04, Novak plays in 2010 form, so Roddick beats him, probably, or Hewitt - still, he's got a chance. 03 is a great chance and the competition wasn't great but neither was he - 50-50. 02, it would be tough to beat Hewitt, especially since 08 Novak lost to 08 Safin who lost to 08 Federer, but possible. 01 is another possibility, but is he beating Goran in his 07 form? Probably not. If we add all that together, it's between 2-7, but around 4 if we account for upsets.

USO. 09, he's facing Delpo in his '15 form. Possible, but tough to say. 08, he's facing Murray in his 2014 form. 50-50 to say he loses like he did to Nishikori in 2014. 07, he faces Roddick or Davydenko in his '13 form. He wins. 06, faces Roddick in his 2012 form, but no exhausting match right before. He wins. 05, he's in his 2011 form against Agassi. He wins. 04, he's in 2010 form against Hewitt. He wins. Loses 02-03. Hewitt probably wins 01. 3-6 USOs. My guess is 5.

Djokovic would have around 19 slams.

Nadal would lose 05 RG, but gain 07 Wimby until 2009.

Then 2010 happens. Federer would have won Wimby 09, then absolutely pushed out Nadal in 2010. Federer takes Wimbledon and USO, fails at RG.
09: Wimby
2010: AO, Wimby (probably, but maybe Nadal?) , USO
11: AO, Wimby, USO
12: AO, Wimby, USO
13: AO, Wimby, USO (At this point I'll take one of these last 9 slams away because he'll get upset somewhere by someone (perhaps Stan at AO 13, but 70-30).)
14: Perhaps loses AO to Stan, perhaps not. 70-30. Wimbledon he wins again, USO he wins easily.
15: AO, again 70-30 against Stan (not a matchup issue for him), Wimby easy, USO.
16: AO, RG, USO. (Let's say Murray gets Wimby)
17: AO (11 Fed > 17 Fed), Wimby, USO (Weak USO, easy pickup)
18: AO, Wimby, USO (not as weak, but not strong enough)
19: AO before he's taken out of action
20: AO, USO
21: Wimby, USO

Total: 10 AOs, 2 RG, 10 Wimbledons, 11 USOs. 33 slams.

Let's say Stan wins 1 of those 3 matches against him. Let's say Murray somehow takes an AO. Let's assume he never bests Nadal at RG even though 05-08 Nadal is better than 11-14 Nadal. Then let's sprinkle in 4 random upsets. He still somehow ends up with 26 slams.


Nadal:
AO: 09
RG: 06, 07, 08, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
WIM: 07, 08, 19
USO: None.
Total: 17 slams.

Federer was very unlucky that Nadal and Novak came up when they did, because what's special about him is that he was a late bloomer and lasted extremely long. That was a recipe for just the odd win in the Djokodal era, but would be a recipe for a decade of dominance in this new post-Djokovic era. If Federer and Djokovic switched, Djokovic would be on-par or slightly below what he has now, Nadal would be slightly less than now, and Federer would be massively ahead.
Fed only 33 Slams? That's harsh!:(
 
Early-Mid 30s Fed would be facing Med/Zverev (Who are better than Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Kiefer and Davydenko etc) now so no guarantee Fed would have more. He would also be facing Nadal on ALL Surfaces as they would be damn near same age. . He avoided young Nadal on all hard slams back in the day until 2009. So I dont see much changing. Older Djokovic is still a problem for younger Federer too due to the mental issue Fed has when he sees the sight of him
 

Rudiiii

Rookie
Novak would face tough challenge from Safin-Hewitt-Roddick and by the time he subdued them on Hard Courts and started to learn how to play on Grass teenage Nadal would arrive, Nadal would thrash Novak and win wimbledon 2-3 times before peak Federer arrived in 2009-2010, then the entire 2010s decade Federer would dominate mercilessly butchering Novak and Nadal.

Novak would be on something like 7-8 slams (similar to Agassi), Nadal would still reach 14+ and Federer would today would be on 20-25 slams and even in the 2020s decade he would be looking forward to add more slams

Federer would probably retire with 30-35 slams in 2025 or 2026 out of boredom.
Well, 35 is exaggerating a little too much he didn't play that much finals,no? Fed grabed what he could have, I don't see him winning 25+ in any era, I still think he gets 2-3 RG at most(2015,2016, maybe 2021 not so sure but let him have it), not more than 10 Wibledons, I think he did fairly well at AO, but let's give him one more meaning 7, and at USO, as he peaked at 24, and having Djokovic and Nadal, already matured, I think he platoed there, but 6 as record holder is fair enough. So 26 and I think I was really generous,like really. If you disagree with any of these numbers, feel free to write yours :) And I don't agree, Djokovic would be second in race for sure, behind Fed ofc, he was really good at RG and USO in early years, stopped by Nadal and Federer only, his only real competition at Wimbly and USO would be Roddick, at RG till 2006 I don't see anyone denying him. AO, well really hard to tell how he would cope there, as he has 9 titles, but I don't see him winning more than 6, just like Fed, maybe even smaller number
 

duaneeo

Legend
I can see Federer winning 30+ (including several CYGS). He would've started consistently winning slams in 2009, and with no strong young guns, Nadal and Roland Garros would've been his only issue. He would've easily dominated rivals Murray/Wawrinka, and the generations of LostGens.

Djokovic would win 6 - 9 slams. We can subtract his Wimbledons, as Roddick followed by Nadal (then Federer) would've won those. He might snatch a USO title. The AO and RG would've been his most successful slams...4 AO titles or so and several RGs.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Fed won his first slam at Wim 2003. Against Philippoussis.

in this alternative scenario the equivalent year is 2009. So instead of Philippoussis he’d be facing 2015 equivalent Novak and Roddick. And in 2010 he‘s facing a peak Nadal. Similar stories for AO and USO in those years. Chances are he wins very little against what would be multislam players. And he also misses the chance opened by Soderling in 2009.

there‘s a good chance that after a few years against this wall he never fully develops and decides to change careers. What would he do though? :unsure: :unsure: ;)
 

Rudiiii

Rookie
Fed won his first slam at Wim 2003. Against Philippoussis.

in this alternative scenario the equivalent year is 2009. So instead of Philippoussis he’d be facing 2015 equivalent Novak and Roddick. And in 2010 he‘s facing a peak Nadal. Similar stories for AO and USO in those years. Chances are he wins very little against what would be multislam players. And he also misses the chance opened by Soderling in 2009.

there‘s a good chance that after a few years against this wall he never fully develops and decides to change careers. What would he do though? :unsure: :unsure: ;)
I mean, there are people saying Nadal played his best tennis when aged 18/19/20, you can't reason with those types
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Novak would face tough challenge from Safin-Hewitt-Roddick and by the time he subdued them on Hard Courts and started to learn how to play on Grass teenage Nadal would arrive, Nadal would thrash Novak and win wimbledon 2-3 times before peak Federer arrived in 2009-2010, then the entire 2010s decade Federer would dominate mercilessly butchering Novak and Nadal.

Novak would be on something like 7-8 slams (similar to Agassi), Nadal would still reach 14+ and Federer would today would be on 20-25 slams and even in the 2020s decade he would be looking forward to add more slams

Federer would probably retire with 30-35 slams in 2025 or 2026 out of boredom.
Which is cool, because in this Bizarre "Sunnyverse*, Novak and Rafa would be billionaires, and Fed just getting by.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
Would it still be 20-20-20 if Djokovic was in his early 20's in 2003 and Federer and Nadal arrived later on? Does Fed with more than 20? Does Djokovic win fewer? How is Nadal affected?

I think Fed wins the GS race somewhat comfortably (3-4), but Nadal still wins roughly the same amount of FO's (maybe more in the last 3/4 of his career vs. the first 1/4), but maybe only gets one Wimbledon (if any). In a reversal of fortunes, Fed takes Australia and Wimbledon away from Nole as he comes into his prime. The USO remains a somewhat neutral GS, but with Nole having a slight edge in total wins there from the weak era preceding Fed and Nadal's arrival.

IMO:
Fed: 23
Rafa: 18
Novak: 15
Usually, Rafa wins all the hypotheticals, so you're wrong there. Otoh, Novak is always worst in this imaginary stories, so you got that right. :)
It's interesting thing about Novak - although he's most successful and greatest player in whole tennis history, he's so weak in any hypothetical scenario, barely an ATG. :)
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Personally I think we need to hear some of the more fervent Fed fans on here explain how Djoko was able to win any Slams at all.

especially without using the phrase “weak era” or “choking” or especially “mugs”. Would be a hilarious exercise, tbh.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Fed won his first slam at Wim 2003. Against Philippoussis.

in this alternative scenario the equivalent year is 2009. So instead of Philippoussis he’d be facing 2015 equivalent Novak and Roddick. And in 2010 he‘s facing a peak Nadal. Similar stories for AO and USO in those years. Chances are he wins very little against what would be multislam players. And he also misses the chance opened by Soderling in 2009.

there‘s a good chance that after a few years against this wall he never fully develops and decides to change careers. What would he do though? :unsure: :unsure: ;)
I think your perception of young Fed's mentality is so off as to be completely laughable, honestly. I feel like it's a knee-jerk reaction to some of the obviously partisan hypotheticals surrounding Fed made by Fed fans, but this might probably be even worse.

First of all, he did face a pretty good Roddick in 2003 anyway so it's not like he'd react much differently on the mental side against 2009 Roddick. Tennis-wise, sure, because 2009 Roddick played a better match.

But you have to realize that at this point Fed was hitting a heck of a hot streak. He was a man on a mission that tournament and it helped that he was the guy chasing glory rather than trying to defend it for so long as he's been doing the past decade. As far as purely Wimbledon 2003 is concerned, I don't believe there's anyone who could have beaten him on that grass (Sampras could on the old grass). I think Fed would relish being the challenger to the throne rather than the defending champion. The 2001 match against Sampras is a fairly good exhibition of that kind of mentality, but he was a bit of a headcase in between some of those tournaments. When his game clicked, though, as it did for Wimbledon 2003, there's really not much stopping him.

Incredibly insane underrating of the guy and his mentality here. That is, if this is indeed a serious post and you're not pulling my leg.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
About the same. I keep reminding y'all historical illiterates that history has a funny way of evening things out but I see you jokers have yet to learn.

A more interesting Q is how many majors an older GOAT like Pistol, Borg, Laver or Gonzales would win in lieu of a Big 3 member. The correct A: he'd be right in the race with 20-ish himself.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I think your perception of young Fed's mentality is so off as to be completely laughable, honestly. I feel like it's a knee-jerk reaction to some of the obviously partisan hypotheticals surrounding Fed made by Fed fans, but this might probably be even worse.

First of all, he did face a pretty good Roddick in 2003 anyway so it's not like he'd react much differently on the mental side against 2009 Roddick. Tennis-wise, sure, because 2009 Roddick played a better match.

But you have to realize that at this point Fed was hitting a heck of a hot streak. He was a man on a mission that tournament and it helped that he was the guy chasing glory rather than trying to defend it for so long as he's been doing the past decade. As far as purely Wimbledon 2003 is concerned, I don't believe there's anyone who could have beaten him on that grass (Sampras could on the old grass). I think Fed would relish being the challenger to the throne rather than the defending champion. The 2001 match against Sampras is a fairly good exhibition of that kind of mentality, but he was a bit of a headcase in between some of those tournaments. When his game clicked, though, as it did for Wimbledon 2003, there's really not much stopping him.

Incredibly insane underrating of the guy and his mentality here. That is, if this is indeed a serious post and you're not pulling my leg.
Well, it’s only partially a serious post. To some extent it’s simply a reaction to other hypotheticals. So in that sense no need to take it too seriously.

But there is an element of “serious analysis”. The broad point, which I’ve made before, is that these hypotheticals have all kinds of ripple effects we don’t take into account. And those ripple effects allow for all kinds of alternative scenarios.

Roddick would be the first to say (and has said so) that his best level was nowhere near what Nadal or Novak could reach. So, sure, Fed faced a pretty good Roddick. But in this scenario he‘d be facing peak Nadal and Novak before he fully developed. And Fed never faced anything even remotely near this in his “formative” years.

So a scenario where 22/23 year old Fed is facing an established Roddick, a Nadal of his similar age (that has already won several slams) and a peak/prime Novak who is 6 years older is probably a scenario where Fed’s slam dominance from when he was 22 to 25 years old never happens. It is perfectly possible he ends up like something closer to Murray.

The biggest mistake in these hypotheticals is that they assume that changing a player‘s birthdate changes nothing in his tennis development, so that if Fed had been born in 1987 his 2010 level would be exactly what it was in 2004. But there is no reason to believe that. A Fed (or any other player) with a different birth date would have different challenges and almost certainly very different developments.

I’m not arguing that a Fed born in 1987 would automatically see his slam count drop dramatically. I’m just saying that the alternative scenario I laid out is as likely as any other scenario we are discussing.

In the end the best is to avoid hypotheticals and focus on actual results. But where is the fun in that? ;)
 

Djokodal Fan

Hall of Fame
Federer 102
Nadal 002
Djokovic 000

10 years of back to back CYGS for Federer.
Federer always wins all the hypothetical scenarios. So I think my prediction will be very close to reality
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
About the same. I keep reminding y'all historical illiterates that history has a funny way of evening things out but I see you jokers have yet to learn.

A more interesting Q is how many majors an older GOAT like Pistol, Borg, Laver or Gonzales would win in lieu of a Big 3 member. The correct A: he'd be right in the race with 20-ish himself.
Unless you are imagining radically different players with radically different training the reality is that none of those players would win anything of note in the modern era. By today’s standards they barely moved. The HIIT type of point common today, which is the main reason for the dramatically increased physical requirements of modern tennis, didn’t even exist back then.

If you check the data in Tennis Abstract you‘ll get the data that the videos of old matches show. most points in fast surfaces were very short, requiring little movement. In the 1969 W final less than 7% of the points were of more than 6 shots. In the 1980 W final that was 5%. For comparison in the 2018 W SF it was over 25%! the old timers would die of a heart attack if they attempted something like that.

and if you look at how they played in slow surfaces it was also dramatically different. I’ve already mentioned that in the Lendl-Borg RG final they had rallies of more than one minute (over 50 strokes) where they just lobbed the ball over and over. You can watch that whole final and not find almost any points that would qualify for a “best points” video by today’s standards. It was practically a different sport.

and this doesn’t even get to the differences in racquet and string tech which would require a full blown retraining of the old guard.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
They all take a hit. Djoker and Nadal take a hit because they now peak on much faster surfaces. Fed takes a hit because he has to he spend his peak on much slower surfaces.

It might be something like 16-14-12 in favor of Djoker. But Fed with 12 is now aging, but hopes he can catch up with another 2 Wimbledons and 2 more hard court slams.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Unless you are imagining radically different players with radically different training the reality is that none of those players would win anything of note in the modern era. By today’s standards they barely moved. The HIIT type of point common today, which is the main reason for the dramatically increased physical requirements of modern tennis, didn’t even exist back then.

If you check the data in Tennis Abstract you‘ll get the data that the videos of old matches show. most points in fast surfaces were very short, requiring little movement. In the 1969 W final less than 7% of the points were of more than 6 shots. In the 1980 W final that was 5%. For comparison in the 2018 W SF it was over 25%! the old timers would die of a heart attack if they attempted something like that.

and if you look at how they played in slow surfaces it was also dramatically different. I’ve already mentioned that in the Lendl-Borg RG final they had rallies of more than one minute (over 50 strokes) where they just lobbed the ball over and over. You can watch that whole final and not find almost any points that would qualify for a “best points” video by today’s standards. It was practically a different sport.

and this doesn’t even get to the differences in racquet and string tech which would require a full blown retraining of the old guard.
You really need to get out more and start playing some ball with people who do know what they're talking about. I've already given you every dot you need to put together, but your understanding of tennis remains so lacking I find it fruitless to try again.

They all take a hit. Djoker and Nadal take a hit because they now peak on much faster surfaces. Fed takes a hit because he has to he spend his peak on much slower surfaces.

It might be something like 16-14-12 in favor of Djoker. But Fed with 12 is now aging, but hopes he can catch up with another 2 Wimbledons and 2 more hard court slams.
If the courts were so "much faster" in the early aughts then explain how every service stat save DF has been creeping up since the '90s, or why we should be focusing on court speeds to begin with when holding serve has never been easier.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
You really need to get out more and start playing some ball with people who do know what they're talking about. I've already given you every dot you need to put together, but your understanding of tennis remains so lacking I find it fruitless to try again.
shorter version: have no arguments, don’t understand the data, let’s attack the poster.

well done!
 
Top