What would Federer play like today if he grew up alongside Sinnercaraz?

How do you think Fed's game would look if he grew up alongside alcaraz and sinner, and was a current 21 year old?

I think he would look like a 2017 Fed but with better movement and physicality. Maybe his net game wouldn't be quite as good (yet). His topspin backhand would be a solid 2 hander, but his slice may be lacking. I think he wouldn't be playing with a heavy pro staff but instead something like an ezone 98, vcore 98, aero 98, etc.

What do you think? Let's discuss :)
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
How do you think Fed's game would look if he grew up alongside alcaraz and sinner, and was a current 21 year old?

I think he would look like a 2017 Fed but with better movement and physicality. Maybe his net game wouldn't be quite as good (yet). His topspin backhand would be a solid 2 hander, but his slice may be lacking. I think he wouldn't be playing with a heavy pro staff but instead something like an ezone 98, vcore 98, aero 98, etc.

What do you think? Let's discuss :)
His short slice is amazing. Would love to see how sinner/alcaraz try to adjust to it.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
He'd have a 2HBH so his slice would be a bit worse, I think his serve would have a bit more oomph but slightly worse placement. But really Fed's tennis gifts and intangibles are so strong that they translate to any era and any condition, past or present. Footwork, hands, FH, hand-eye coordination and reflexes (dude would half-volley from the baseline with a 1HBH in his 30s and was still competitive at the highest level) etc.

Sinnercaraz would have been in deep sh ! t IMO.

0 Slams in any other era

Of course, just ask Spencer Bore or any other TTW expert.

Such a worthless player yet they made like 10000 threads about him.
 

Wesling

Semi-Pro
Feds BH was never a problem until a kid from Mallorca came along.. I think he would be a dimitrov v2.0 and would handle sinner and Alcaraz just fine.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Sinnercaraz is not a good name.
Fedal worked because it reduced saying Federer and Nadal.
Sinnercaraz is only two syllables shorter than sinner and Alcaraz.
I am from Fedal times, and I do not even need to talk about Sinner and Alcaraz, so no worries for inventing any word.
Also, we are not allowed to discuss Fedal in GPPD, after my poll failed miserably because of the pusillanimity of many users.
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
When I watch Fed highlights I'm always amazed how much he was able to hug the baseline. Always found a way to stay close to it when playing groundies and then finding ways to move in ASAP.
I wonder if he grew up now would he be like everyone else and stand 15 feet back or would he be challenging everyone by holding his ground just a step or two behind the baseline?
Could Alcaraz or Sinner force him back?
 
Last edited:

Wesling

Semi-Pro
I think a young fed would adapt very well to sinner, he is a one trick pony and fed would mix things up with slizes and volley. No problem.
 
He'd do well. He might want a lighter racquet (and it looks like he was thinking about it with the RF01 Pro) to keep up with the faster and spinny-er play. Priem Federer's versatility and range itself puts him at the top.
 
I am from Fedal times, and I do not even need to talk about Sinner and Alcaraz, so no worries for inventing any word.
Also, we are not allowed to discuss Fedal in GPPD, after my poll failed miserably because of the pusillanimity of many users.
I voted to keep the Big 3 in GPPD ;) unfortunately things didn't go our way...

We are still talking about Alcaraz and Sinner so hopefully is still relevant enough for GPPD
 
Last edited:
If fed could handle 2011 djokovic on Clay sinner and alcaraz would be easy
True. The biggest issue for fed was his physicality and his ability to hang in long rallies as he got older imo. I think a major reason he did well against djokovic until the early 2010s was because he was willing to rally with him. He started losing more when he began shortening points even further, sometimes forcing it too much imo.

That being said, a younger Federer that is Sinner/Alcaraz age (and assuming he is better physically due to the changing of times) should have zero problems in extended rallies. Can definitely see him become the man to beat at RG. Fast hard court and grass should also go to Fed with his serve, touch, and his ability to take the ball early and hug the baseline.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
Federer would have become the maestro of pickleball which favors offensive play and quick points instead of trying to survive in tennis with a 1HBH.
 
So old Djokovic can beat them, but a young Federer could not. Ok then.
I was just kidding about the game "evolving". People really do think that though. Believe me, down the road, people that just missed seeing Federer won't rate him as highly as they should. Most people can't wrap their head around the best of their time not being as good as someone before their time. It's that way in every sport.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I was just kidding about the game "evolving". People really do think that though. Believe me, down the road, people that just missed seeing Federer won't rate him as highly as they should. Most people can't wrap their head around the best of their time not being as good as someone before their time. It's that way in every sport.
We know that the latest tennis evolution is highly exaggerated.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
But there is also a problem that nowadays all players do deep defense. I would love to see how many times players play from neutral today vs defense than in the past.
The best example of that is Medvedev, who used to get utterly bamboozled by Fed’s ability to isolate him in the forecourt with short balls that he could not get “up and down” quickly enough.

Medvedev adjusted, and is now much better at dealing with that type of shot, but he is one of the best players of the Post-Fed era. For the rank and file of current tennis players defending deep Federer would cause a great deal of problems imo.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Fed would be winning CYGS. These current dudes would have no clue how to handle Fed's variety.
Alcaraz does have good variety in his game. But generally speaking, I agree w/you. He'd be a unicorn amongst a bunch of baseline bangers. For me, he was the most talented player since Mac stepped on the court. He could work magic with a racquet. Nadal and Djoko wound up w/a few more slams, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
The best example of that is Medvedev, who used to get utterly bamboozled by Fed’s ability to isolate him in the forecourt with short balls that he could not get “up and down” quickly enough.

Medvedev adjusted, and is now much better at dealing with that type of shot, but he is one of the best players of the Post-Fed era. For the rank and file of current tennis players defending deep Federer would cause a great deal of problems imo.
Meddy plays so deep in the court that it's mind boggling at times....not sure it's such a great strategy.
 

beltsman

G.O.A.T.
Alcaraz does have good variety in his game. But generally speaking, I agree w/you. He'd be a unicorn amongst a bunch of baseline bangers. For me, he was the most talented player since Mac stepped on the court. He could work magic with a racquet. Nadal and Djoko wound up w/a few more slams, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Carlos has a variety of tools, but doesn't employ them in a very tactical way. More importantly, Carlos isn't used to facing the precise tactical variety that Fed brings. It's different when it's on the other side of the net. Carlos plays almost exclusively power baseliners.
 
he would probably be more offensive. federer was quite defensive from the baseline with a lot of backhand slice. wouldn't get away with it in this era
 
on grass, it's a huge weapon...go ask Steffi Graf if you don't believe it!

Federer didn't beat any world class opponents in their primes to win his Wimbledon titles. Was Nadal world class on grass at W07? hardly, he'd have been straight setted by Pete in the 90's.

Feddie on grass is overrated, he had wins against suspect players, and even said suspect players like Roddick weren't in their primes in 2005. His 2006 draw was a joke, his 2003 draw was a bigger joke. Lol.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Federer didn't beat any world class opponents in their primes to win his Wimbledon titles. Was Nadal world class on grass at W07? hardly, he'd have been straight setted by Pete in the 90's.

Feddie on grass is overrated, he had wins against suspect players, and even said suspect players like Roddick weren't in their primes in 2005. His 2006 draw was a joke, his 2003 draw was a bigger joke. Lol.
If anything, Nadal is a better grass court player than he gets credit for with 2 W's in his pocket. Roddick was certainly in his prime in the mid-aughts. Fed also beat Murray, who is also a 2 time winner. Sure, Scud and Cilic are perhaps lesser, yet Cilic was also a formiddable guy. Fed's losses at W to Djoko always bugged me...but he was clearly no longer at the very top of his game....not far from it, but just not as dominant as earlier. I don't see him as overrated, probably equal to Pete and Djoko, in general. I just see him as slightly better on the turf (or at least more comfortable, as his game worked very well on grass)
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
When I watch Fed highlights I'm always amazed how much he was able to hug the baseline. Always found a way to stay close to it when playing groundies and then finding ways to move in ASAP.
I wonder if he grew up now would he be like everyone else and stand 15 feet back or would he be challenging everyone by holding his ground just a step or two behind the baseline?
Could Alcaraz or Sinner force him back?

Roger was magnificent in taking the ball on the rise and redirecting it, but the weight of shot was lower than now. Nadal was famously different and his ball drew more errors or forced him back while being able to run much down.

The combination of movement and power of Sinner and Alcaraz would also raise a tactical dilemma.
 

BlackSilver

Semi-Pro
Interesting. But I have doubts if they collected enough matches to have a very precise data. Possibly with Federer is good enough, but with other players they may lack enough matches, or have a biased sample.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Interesting. But I have doubts if they collected enough matches to have a very precise data. Possibly with Federer is good enough, but with other players they may lack enough matches, or have a biased sample.
They collected. Oh they collected. It's 800 matches. There is zero bias.
 
Top