Who would have won Federer's 13 slams had he not been around?

[Michael Bluth]

This is a complement of sorts to the Pete Sampras thread that sprung up.

Here are my thoughts:

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
AO 04: Agassi(Safin succumbs to finals pressure and doesn't play as well as he did against Andre in their real life semi).
Wimbledon 04: Roddick.
USO 04: Agassi.
Wimbledon 05: Tossup between Ro8ddick and Hewitt.
USO 05: Hewitt(Andre runs out of gas in the final).
AO 06: Baghdatis( though if Haas kept up the form he displayed in that R16 against Fed he could go deep and maybe steal it).
Wimbledon 06: Nadal.
USO 06: Roddick
AO 07: Gonzalez
Wimbledon 07: Nadal.
USO 07: Roddick(Djokovic chokes).
USO 08: Djokovic.

 

[thalivest]

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
Australian Open 04: Nalbandian (or Hewitt)
Wimbledon 04: Roddick
US Open 04: Hewitt (doesnt matter how they each played vs Federer, Federer is horrible matchup for Hewitt, Agassi isnt)
Wimbledon 05: Hewitt (playing way better than Roddick at that years Wimbledon)
US Open 05: Hewitt
Australian Open 06: Kiefer (or Davydenko)
Wimbledon 06: Nadal (or Ancic)
USO 06: Blake
AO 07: Gonzalez
Wimbledon 07: Nadal
US Open 07: Djokovic (Djokovic only really choked one game in the final and it was Federer not Roddick on other side of net)
USO 08: Murray (or Nadal if Murray is in other half)

 

[JamaicanYoute]

I think if Safin would have been "around", he would've won more GS's than Fed. regardless...

But that's just my opinion..

Matt

 

[abmk]

I think if Safin would have been "around", he would've won more GS's than Fed. regardless...

But that's just my opinion..

Matt

sure, he would've been winning 5 wimbledons in a row had there been no federer ......

 

[thalivest]

I think if Safin would have been "around", he would've won more GS's than Fed. regardless...

But that's just my opinion..

Matt

I disagree. Safin is great but overrated on this forum all the same. Even if he fully applied himself he is not a major threat on grass at all, one slightly flukish Wimbledon semi at the end of his career does not confirm his prowess on grass of a potential Wimbledon winner, let alone multiple. On clay he has more history than on grass, but he certainly isnt good enough to win a French over Nadal even if he fully applied himself. On hard courts he would have had chances to win more chances to win more, but would have had alot of competition there so unlikely to dominate even there. He had to play the 2nd best match of his to just beat a fairly good Federer in the 2005 AO, and that was saving a match point. Unlike Federer he doesnt match up great with Roddick, and has lost multiple matches to him even playing very well. Likewise Hewitt is a tough opponent for him, unlike Federer, even when playing well at times.

 

[abmk]

thalivest,

blake - USO 2006 is bit surprising ! I'd go with roddick ........

Also USO 2007, if roddick played the way he did vs federer in the QFs, djoko wouldn't have had it easy, though I'd still favour djoko , but not by much ..

 

[abmk]

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
AO 04: Hewitt/Nalbandian
Wimbledon 04: Roddick
USO 04: Hewitt
Wimbledon 05: Hewitt/Roddick ( I'd favour hewitt by a slight margin )
USO 05: Hewitt
AO 06: Baghdatis
Wimbledon 06: Nadal/Ancic
USO 06: Roddick
AO 07: Gonzalez
Wimbledon 07: Nadal
USO 07: Djokovic , maybe Roddick
USO 08: Murray/Djokovic - first slam final nerves for murray, so can't say

 

[abmk]

He had to play the 2nd best match of his to just beat a fairly good Federer in the 2005 AO, and that was saving a match point.

Federer played great in that match !

 

[JamaicanYoute]

sure, he would've been winning 5 wimbledons in a row had there been no federer ......

Ok. What I'm about to say will probably cause a great up roar with so many people on Federer's D___. BUT, while I know he's an amazing player, I don't think he's as good as most people think he is. He's really good, but I know people who think of him as a God.

I think if Safin would have a good head on his shoulders he could've won so many Grandslams. When he's playing well, he's so effortless in his shots - Like a Federer or Sampras. To me though, he has that fire power to just blow someone off the court. I think Federer has learned how to stay "in-the-zone", that has allowed him to dominate so long. With that said, I'm probably one of the few people that thinks that there should be better competitors playing Federer. Now we're finally starting to see better players. Most of the pros nowadays (to me) are 1 dimensional. Unlike in the 90's where you were required to do so many things well, (also the difference in surfaces compared to today). I would've loved to see Fed. playing in the 90's versus the Petes, Andres, Kafelnikovs, Krajiceks, Beckers. I still think he would be one of the best, but not as dominant as he has been.

People keep saying that today's players are better athletes. I agree, but at the same time I think the tennis skill has gone down. To me, most of the pros do the same thing: run fast, hit with heavy top spin off all shots, have a big forehand and hit down the middle of the court. Which is why the Nadal-Fed matches are so great. We get to see 2 good players NOT hitting down the middle of the court, and they force each other to make shots and do things they don't do against the other players. So if Safin could have dedicated himself like a Rafa or Roger or Pete or Andre, ETC, I think he could've taken at least half of Roger's GS's. But because he never did, he's the type of guy that could be up 6-0,5-0 and get pissed off about missing a shot and tank it.

I disagree 'thalivliest'. I think if he applied himself at W, he has a big enough serve, groudstrokes to match, and can volley. Not to mention his volleys and level of comfort on grass would've probably gotten better with age. I think he could've won a couple. (And I'm not one of these people that jump on a band-wagon. My opinion has more to do with him than it does with his last result at W). I agree with you for the most part regarding RG. But at AS and US I think he could've won a few there too.

BUT - that's just my opinion.

Matt

 

[abmk]

Ok. What I'm about to say will probably cause a great up roar with so many people on Federer's D___. BUT, while I know he's an amazing player, I don't think he's as good as most people think he is. He's really good, but I know people who think of him as a God.

I think if Safin would have a good head on his shoulders he could've won so many Grandslams. When he's playing well, he's so effortless in his shots - Like a Federer or Sampras. To me though, he has that fire power to just blow someone off the court. I think Federer has learned how to stay "in-the-zone", that has allowed him to dominate so long. With that said, I'm probably one of the few people that thinks that there should be better competitors playing Federer. Now we're finally starting to see better players. Most of the pros nowadays (to me) are 1 dimensional. Unlike in the 90's where you were required to do so many things well, (also the difference in surfaces compared to today). I would've loved to see Fed. playing in the 90's versus the Petes, Andres, Kafelnikovs, Krajiceks, Beckers. I still think he would be one of the best, but not as dominant as he has been.

People keep saying that today's players are better athletes. I agree, but at the same time I think the tennis skill has gone down. To me, most of the pros do the same thing: run fast, hit with heavy top spin off all shots, have a big forehand and hit down the middle of the court. Which is why the Nadal-Fed matches are so great. We get to see 2 good players NOT hitting down the middle of the court, and they force each other to make shots and do things they don't do against the other players. So if Safin could have dedicated himself like a Rafa or Roger or Pete or Andre, ETC, I think he could've taken at least half of Roger's GS's. But because he never did, he's the type of guy that could be up 6-0,5-0 and get pissed off about missing a shot and tank it.

I disagree 'thalivliest'. I think if he applied himself at W, he has a big enough serve, groudstrokes to match, and can volley. Not to mention his volleys and level of comfort on grass would've probably gotten better with age. I think he could've won a couple. (And I'm not one of these people that jump on a band-wagon. My opinion has more to do with him than it does with his last result at W). I agree with you for the most part regarding RG. But at AS and US I think he could've won a few there too.

BUT - that's just my opinion.

Matt

The bold part shows that you way over-rate safin and are unrealistic ...

@ underlined part: Just blowing people off the court is not the only thing in tennis !

About safin on grass, movement is also a key component on grass and safin was never a great mover ...

But I agree, fed could've been tested more during his prime ....

 

[JamaicanYoute]

The bold part shows that you way over-rate safin and are unrealistic ...

@ underlined part: Just blowing people off the court is not the only thing in tennis !

About safin on grass, movement is also a key component on grass and safin was never a great mover ...

But I agree, fed could've been tested more during his prime ....

No I don't over-rate Safin. I'm being realistic. If he had a good head, he'd be a top player. So many things would be different and better in his head. Federer used to be like Safin. Plenty of potential, but attitude just killed him and his chances. Something significant happened in his life that put things in perspective. Since then, he's not taken his talent for granted and made him come through on his potential. In the end making him better than he probably thought he could be.

The underlined part, I should have written it differently. My apologies. What I mean by blowing people off the court is not only power. It takes much more to blow people off the court. Takes touch, precision, power - everything. I'm 5'8", and although I have pretty good pace on my ball (especially for my size), I rely on a lot of things to play good tennis.

While I agree good movement is a great attribute to have, especially on grass, plenty of people have done well there without being great movers. (Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, ETC). And like-wise, plenty of great movers have not done well there.

Matt

 

[urban]

On par with the usual and useless goat discussion between Federer and Sampras this question is probably the dumbest on a forum. What would for instance Johnston would have won without Tilden? Or Rosewall without Hoad? Or Emerson without Laver? And so on. Its absolutely irrelevant. What would Leconte would have won, if he learned to play with his brain? What would Tiger Woods would have won, if he had played tennis? What would have Richard Lionheart achieved, if he had a racket in his hand and not a sword?

 

[flying24]

On par with the usual and useless goat discussion between Federer and Sampras this question is probably the dumbest on a forum. What would for instance Johnston would have won without Tilden? Or Rosewall without Hoad? Or Emerson without Laver? And so on. Its absolutely irrelevant. What would Leconte would have won, if he learned to play with his brain? What would Tiger Woods would have won, if he had played tennis? What would have Richard Lionheart achieved, if he had a racket in his hand and not a sword?

Those all could be interesting things to speculate on as well though.

It is also a amazing to think without Nadal that Federer would have won the calendar grand slam 2 years in a row and won all the slams atleast 4 times already.

 

[lawrence]

haha, the number of times hewitt was playing awesome and got knocked out by fed in the semi's or quarters in a slam was saddening

 

[cristiano]

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
Australian Open 04: Nalbandian (or Hewitt)
Wimbledon 04: Roddick
US Open 04: Hewitt (doesnt matter how they each played vs Federer, Federer is horrible matchup for Hewitt, Agassi isnt)
Wimbledon 05: Hewitt (playing way better than Roddick at that years Wimbledon)
US Open 05: Hewitt
Australian Open 06: Kiefer (or Davydenko)
Wimbledon 06: Nadal (or Ancic)
USO 06: Blake
AO 07: Gonzalez
Wimbledon 07: Nadal
US Open 07: Djokovic (Djokovic only really choked one game in the final and it was Federer not Roddick on other side of net)
USO 08: Murray (or Nadal if Murray is in other half)

I agree almost with everything

 

[egn]

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
AO 04: Nalbandian/Safin
Wimbledon 04: Roddick
USO 04: Hewitt
Wimbledon 05: Hewitt/Roddick
USO 05: Hewitt
AO 06: Davydenko
Wimbledon 06: Ancic/Nadal
USO 06: Roddick
AO 07: Gonzalez/Roddick
Wimbledon 07: Nadal
USO 07: Djokovic
USO 08jokovic

we definitely had this thread all ready...

 

[380pistol]

03 Wim - P'sis
04 Aus Open - Agassi or Safin (depending on how the draw plays out)
04 Wim - Roddick
04 US Open - Agassi or Hewitt
05 Wim - Hewitt
05 US Open - Agassi or Hewitt (depending on draw, but Agassi's back may not hold up and at 35???)
06 Aus Open - Haas
06 Wim - Nadal
06 US Open - Roddick
07 Aus Open - Roddick or Gonzalez
07 Wim - Nadal
07 US Open - Djokovic
08 US Open - Djokovic

 

[hewittboy]

2003 Wimbledon: Roddick
2004 Australian Open: Hewitt
2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt
2004 U.S Open: Hewitt
2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt
2005 U.S Open: Hewitt
2006 Australian Open: Kiefer
2006 Wimbledon: Nadal
2006 U.S Open: Davydenko
2007 Australian Open: Gonzalez
2007 Wimbledon: Nadal
2007 U.S Open: Djokovic
2008 U.S Open: Nadal (Murray chokes in final like he did vs Fed)

 

[grafselesfan]

2003 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 Australian Open- Hewitt
2004 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 U.S Open- Agassi
2005 Wimbledon- Roddick
2005 U.S Open- Agassi
2006 Australian Open- Davydenko
2006 Wimbledon- Nadal
2006 U.S Open- Roddick
2007 Australian Open- Roddick
2007 Wimbledon- Nadal
2007 U.S Open- Roddick
2008 U.S Open- Murray

Roddick would actually have 7 slams now and Agassi 10.

 

[Rickson]

Basically all the runners up that Federer faced.

 

[clayman2000]

2003 Wimby - Roddick
2004 AO - Agassi
2004 Wimby - Roddick
2004 USO - Hewitt
2005 Wimby - Hewitt
2005 USO - Agassi
2006 AO - Bhagdhatis
2006 Wimby - Nadal
2006 USO -Roddick
2007 AO - Gonzo
2007 Wimby - Nadal
2007 USO - Roddick
2008 USO - Djokovic

So that would make:
Andy Roddick - 5 slams
Lleyton Hewitt - 4 slams
Andre Agassi - 10 slams
Rafael Nadal - 8 slams
Novak Djokovic - 2 slams
Gonzo and Baggy 1 a piece

 

[grafselesfan]

How would Agassi win the 2004 Australian Open when he lost to Safin anyway?

 

[okdude1992]

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
AO 04: Safin
Wimbledon 04: Roddick.
USO 04: Agassi (maybe hewitt. tough call)
Wimbledon 05: Roddick
USO 05: really close between agassi and hewitt
AO 06: Baghdatis (clearly the best player in that tournament)
Wimbledon 06: Nadal.
USO 06: Roddick
AO 07: Gonzalez (same as baghdatis in 06, he was on fire only fed could beat him)
Wimbledon 07: Nadal.
USO 07: roddick in a close one vs djokovic (he played great vs fed in the quarters)
USO 08: Djokovic (murray gets nervous in first final)

without fed, roddick could have 5 slams imo

 

[grafselesfan]

Baghdatis only survived Ljubicic and Nalbandian since they both choked. Federer wasnt playing as well as he did vs Kiefer and Davydenko vs Baghdatis in the final and Marcos could still only manage a set. Haas got to 5 sets vs Federer only because Federer went to sleep for a set and a half, and got too comfortable in cruise control, he didnt even manage half the winners of Federer for the match.

I am amazed anyone picks Haas or Baghdatis to win that event. To me it would clearly be Kiefer or Davydenko who both legitimately pushed Federer in their matches. Grosjean took Kiefer to 5 in the quarters, was a bit unlucky to lose, and was a perennial contender there so I would say he had a shot too. Ljubicic and Nalbandian would have finished off Bagdhatis on most days so even them I would give a better shot if the draw were rearranged. Baghdatis and Haas would only be about the 6th and 7th most likely winners without Federer IMO.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Wimbledon 03: Roddick
Australian Open 04: Nalbandian (or Hewitt)
Wimbledon 04: Roddick
US Open 04: Hewitt (doesnt matter how they each played vs Federer, Federer is horrible matchup for Hewitt, Agassi isnt)
Wimbledon 05: Hewitt (playing way better than Roddick at that years Wimbledon)
US Open 05: Hewitt
Australian Open 06: Kiefer (or Davydenko)
Wimbledon 06: Nadal (or Ancic)
USO 06: Blake
AO 07: Gonzalez
Wimbledon 07: Nadal
US Open 07: Djokovic (Djokovic only really choked one game in the final and it was Federer not Roddick on other side of net)
USO 08: Murray (or Nadal if Murray is in other half)

yeah.. i love this list... why not Sampras AO 06 or Laver WImby 07... Spadea USO 04... anything you wish... just ask for!

 

[Josherer]

Slams if Nadal hadn't been around?

 

[lawrence]

Basically all the runners up that Federer faced.

no, not at all actually.
there were a lot of slams where the opponent fed knocked out in the semis would be winning the finals too. nahmean?

 

[clayman2000]

How would Agassi win the 2004 Australian Open when he lost to Safin anyway?

Ya i keep forgetting that, thinking that Safin beat Roddick in the semis, when it was really the quarters.


and 2007 AO, everyone assumes Gonzales would have beaten Roddick. But doesn't Roddick own Gonzalez like their H2h is like 8-2

 

[380pistol]

How would Agassi win the 2004 Australian Open when he lost to Safin anyway?

Cuz Federer was seeded #2 in in the 2004 Aus Open. remove him, bump players up one spot, it changes the draw if you look at it that way.

 

[grafselesfan]

Cuz Federer was seeded #2 in in the 2004 Aus Open. remove him, bump players up one spot, it changes the draw if you look at it that way.

That is true. It would be an interesting event with the draw re-arranged. Agassi, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, were all playing at a very close level to each other at that particular slam. Federer a notch above all of them of coure, but remove him and it gets very interesting to see how it would turn out, especialy if the draw is rearranged and players play each other on alot of different days.

I would have to say the 2004 Australian Open and 2006 Australian Opens are the events that would have been most interesting to see how they would have went without Federer. Lots of guys at both playing very close to each other.

 

[Joeyg]

Who cares?

 

[bluetrain4]

Obviously, it's easiest to go with whomever he beat in the final of his Slams.

But, there is always the possiblity that someone he beat on the way to the final in the SFs or QFs, for example, would have their path cleared and possiblity pull out the win.

For example, the '07 AO could just as easily been won by Roddick , whom Fed beat in the SFs as by Gonzalez.

 

[grafselesfan]

Obviously, it's easiest to go with whomever he beat in the final of his Slams.

But, there is always the possiblity that someone he beat on the way to the final in the SFs or QFs, for example, would have their path cleared and possiblity pull out the win.

For example, the '07 AO could just as easily been won by Roddick , whom Fed beat in the SFs as by Gonzalez.

In some cases it is even pretty obvious it would have been the semifinal and quarterfinal loser. For example the 2007 U.S Open it is very obvious Venus would have won without Justine even though she lost in the semis, and that even Serena would have beaten Kuznetsova in the final (maybe Venus if Venus gifted it to her on purpose like 2008 ). At the 1990 U.S Open it is plainly obvious that Lendl would have beaten Agassi in the final if they played, despite that Lendl lost in the quarters to Sampras and Agassi in the final. It is a no brainer that Federer would have beaten Puerta in the 2005 French Open final, despite that it is Puerta who lost to Nadal in final and Federer to Nadal in the semis, despite how well Puerta played the final. At the 1986 French Open it is pretty obvious Graf would have spanked Sukova in the final (ugh those 3 wasted match points), even though Graf lost the semis to Navratilova, and Sukova the final.

 

[clayman2000]

Baghdatis only survived Ljubicic and Nalbandian since they both choked. Federer wasnt playing as well as he did vs Kiefer and Davydenko vs Baghdatis in the final and Marcos could still only manage a set. Haas got to 5 sets vs Federer only because Federer went to sleep for a set and a half, and got too comfortable in cruise control, he didnt even manage half the winners of Federer for the match.

I am amazed anyone picks Haas or Baghdatis to win that event. To me it would clearly be Kiefer or Davydenko who both legitimately pushed Federer in their matches. Grosjean took Kiefer to 5 in the quarters, was a bit unlucky to lose, and was a perennial contender there so I would say he had a shot too. Ljubicic and Nalbandian would have finished off Bagdhatis on most days so even them I would give a better shot if the draw were rearranged. Baghdatis and Haas would only be about the 6th and 7th most likely winners without Federer IMO.

I dont think we are talking about the draw rearranged. More like if the people who lost to federer advanced to the next round.

Im suprised you would take Kiefer to win over Baggy. Kiefer usually always takes a set of Federer. If you look at their H2H the score is probably like this: 6-2 5-7 6-2 6-0
Its wierd but thats just how he does it.

Baggy beat three top 10 players in the world, and had a great chance to have a 2 set to love lead on Fed. Im sure he could have beaten the "happy to be there" Kiefer and the "scared of the big stage" davydenko

 

[grafselesfan]

I dont think we are talking about the draw rearranged. More like if the people who lost to federer advanced to the next round.

Im suprised you would take Kiefer to win over Baggy. Kiefer usually always takes a set of Federer. If you look at their H2H the score is probably like this: 6-2 5-7 6-2 6-0
Its wierd but thats just how he does it.

Baggy beat three top 10 players in the world, and had a great chance to have a 2 set to love lead on Fed. Im sure he could have beaten the "happy to be there" Kiefer and the "scared of the big stage" davydenko

You could be right, I guess we will never know. I always found Kiefer a tough tough player when he was playing well. He is someone I was surprised didnt do more in his career. His groundstrokes were very penetrating and deep when he was confident, his return game was very firm and agressive, his serve was very big, he was awfully quick around the court. I am at a bit of a loss why he didnt do more with his career. I found the tennis he was playing at this event was very explosive and without Federer I could see him taking out anyone. Yeah Grosjean took him to 5 in the quarters, but Grosjean is someone else who IMO would have had a real shot at winning it that year without Federer IMO, as it was often then king of Australia Agassi mainly that was stopping Grosjean in some past years there.

Baghdatis IMO only beat Ljubicic and especialy Nalbandian since they choked bigtime, even moreso Nalbandian who should have closed him out in straights. Roddick in the 4th round I felt played a terrible match, completely defensive from the baseline even for his standards. No doubt Baghdatis played extremely well at that Australian Open for some big wins and a final appearances, but he was aided quite a bit by the underperforming or choking of his opponents all the same IMO.

Davydenko only freezes vs Federer, and sometimes Nadal or Djokovic. He would not freeze vs someone like Baghdatis, he does not tend to choke vs generally lesser players, only ones he realizes in the back of his form are superior even if he is playing well enough to be able to beat them. Davydenko's performance vs Federer was exceptional, and it was truly Federer's tightest match from start to finish, despite that Haas took him to 5 sets. Federer was also playing very well that day, unlike the final vs Baghdatis were he wasnt playing well at all for his standards, or the Haas match where he literally dozed off for a couple sets.

Personally I find Baghdatis and Haas's chances of winning without Federer overrated, and Davydenko and Kiefer underrated. Just my own viewpoint though.