Without Fedal, How Would the Last Decade Have Gone? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Without Fedal, How Would the Last Decade Have Gone?

lessthanjake
07-26-2009, 12:09 AM
Federer and Nadal have dominated the last 6 years or so. How would this decade have gone if those two players had not been there. Here's how I see the grand slams, Masters Championship, and Olympics having gone, as well as who the year-end #1 would've been:

Results

2000
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Kuerten
Wimbledon: Sampras
US Open: Safin
Masters Championship: Kuerten
Olympics: Kafelnikov

2001
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Kuerten
Wimbledon: Ivanisevic
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Hewitt

2002
Australian Open: Johansson
French Open: Costa
Wimbledon: Hewitt
US Open: Sampras
Masters' Championship: Hewitt

2003
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Ferrero
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open: Roddick
Masters' Championship: Roddick

2004
Australian Open: Safin
French Open: Gaudio
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Safin
Olympics: Massu

2005
Australian Open: Safin
French Open: Moya
Wimbledon: Hewitt
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Nalbandian

2006
Australian Open: Davydenko
French Open: Nalbandian
Wimbledon: Ancic
US Open: Roddick
Masters' Championship: Roddick

2007
Australian Open: Roddick
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Djokovic
US Open: Djokovic
Masters' Championship: Davydenko

2008
Australian Open: Djokovic
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Murray
US Open: Djokovic
Masters' Championship: Djokovic
Olympics: Djokovic

2009
Australian Open: Roddick
French Open: Del Potro
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open:
Masters' Championship:

Year-End Number Ones
2000: Kuerten
2001: Hewitt
2002: Hewitt
2003: Roddick
2004: Roddick (barely over Safin)
2005: Hewitt
2006: Roddick (barely over Davydenko)
2007: Djokovic
2008: Djokovic
2009: Roddick, most likely

Number of Slams for Players
Roddick: 7
Hewitt: 6
Djokovic: 6
Safin: 3
Moya: 2
Nalbandian: 1
Murray: 1
Del Potro: 1
Davydenko: 1
Ancic: 1

I think if the Fedal duopoly did not exist, that Roddick and Djokovic would be the clear beneficiaries. Roddick would undoubtedly have won a bunch of slams if he didn't have to face Federer, the one player he can't beat. And in 2007 and 2008, I believe Djokovic would have dominated if there was no Federer or Nadal. He was clearly the best clay court player outside of those two so I believe he would have won Roland Garros both years; I see him likely taking both US Opens that he lost to Federer in; he won the 2008 AO anyways, and I think he would have squeaked out the 2007 Wimbledon as no one besides Federer and Nadal were playing very well. Hewitt would've also benefitted from this, probably taking a few US Opens and Wimbledons. Apart from that, Nalbandian and Davydenko would probably be slam winners; Safin would likely have won 3, and Murray and Del Potro would already be started in their slam count.

Certinfy
07-26-2009, 12:11 AM
This is a very well done thread i must say, and tbh i would have to agree with you on most of that tbh. :D

Sunset of Age
07-26-2009, 12:17 AM
Interesting. I quite agree.

delpiero7
07-26-2009, 12:19 AM
If only Djokovic hadn't messed up at Wimbledon in 2008 he would have a fantasy calendar year golden slam :eek: :D

ballbasher101
07-26-2009, 12:23 AM
Nalbandian would surely have at least one slam to his name.

DJ Soup
07-26-2009, 12:24 AM
Nalbandian lost that Roland Garros because he got injured, not because Federer stopped him.

Nalbandian would have almost the same career results with or without Fed-Nadal

Sapeod
07-26-2009, 12:28 AM
I agree with everything except for the 2008 US Open. That would've been Murray's ;p Apart from that everything is spot on IMO. Glad it didn't happen though :D

ballbasher101
07-26-2009, 12:28 AM
Nalbandian lost that Roland Garros because he got injured, not because Federer stopped him.

Nalbandian would have almost the same career results with or without Fed-Nadal

I remember that semi-final match at the French. It was windy and Federer really was struggling. Had Nalbandian not got injured I think Federer would have lost that match.

shotgun
07-26-2009, 12:34 AM
2003
Wimbledon: Roddick

Highly debatable whether he would beat Philippoussis.

2005
French Open: Moya

:confused: Very random choice. The obvious would be Mariano "roid monkey" Puerta, who even took a set off Nadal in the final.

Wimbledon: Hewitt

Coin toss between him and Roddick.

US Open: Hewitt

Coin toss between him and Agassi.


2006
Australian Open: Davydenko

Are you sure he would beat Baghdatis?


Masters' Championship: Roddick

Nah, Roddick got schooled by Nalbandian in this tournament. Here, the answer would have to be Blake.


2007
Australian Open: Roddick

Gonzalez was playing at a much higher level, he would have demolished him.

Masters' Championship: Davydenko

Why not David Ferrer?


2009
Australian Open: Roddick

I'd favour Verdasco over him. :shrug:

French Open: Del Potro

The match against Soderling would be 50/50.

leng jai
07-26-2009, 12:41 AM
Ridiculous thread.

lessthanjake
07-26-2009, 12:42 AM
Nalbandian lost that Roland Garros because he got injured, not because Federer stopped him.

Nalbandian would have almost the same career results with or without Fed-Nadal

I thought about that, but my thinking was that I have no clue whether his abdominal injury during that match was aggravated by something that happened in the match. If it was, then I can say that against another player, the match would have been different, and that might not have happened. Since he had been playing quite well before that, I suspect that he aggravated it in the match, and I chose to take the opinion that that likely would not have happened in a different match.

That particular slam is hard to gauge because Djokovic and Nalbandian both retired from their matches. I dont think Ancic or Ljubicic could possibly have actually won Roland Garros, though they got far. If Federer and Nadal hadn't been there, Massu or Berdych would likely have faced Ancic in the quarters and Hewitt would likely have faced Djokovic in the quarters. If you exclude Nalbandian and Djokovic from contention, saying that they were injured and retired, you are left with these realistically possible winners: Ljubicic, Ancic, Massu, Berdych, and Hewitt. I guess out of those, I would say Hewitt would likely have emerged but none of those players would be good RG winners. This is part of why I chose to take the opinion that injuries that happened against Federer or Nadal would not have happened against another player.

Burrow
07-26-2009, 01:07 AM
Federer and Nadal have dominated the last 6 years or so. How would this decade have gone if those two players had not been there. Here's how I see the grand slams, Masters Championship, and Olympics having gone, as well as who the year-end #1 would've been:

Results

2000
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Kuerten
Wimbledon: Sampras
US Open: Safin
Masters Championship: Kuerten
Olympics: Kafelnikov

2001
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Kuerten
Wimbledon: Ivanisevic
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Hewitt

2002
Australian Open: Johansson
French Open: Costa
Wimbledon: Hewitt
US Open: Sampras
Masters' Championship: Hewitt

2003
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Ferrero
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open: Roddick
Masters' Championship: Roddick

2004
Australian Open: Safin
French Open: Gaudio
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Safin
Olympics: Massu

2005
Australian Open: Safin
French Open: Moya
Wimbledon: Hewitt
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Nalbandian

2006
Australian Open: Davydenko
French Open: Nalbandian
Wimbledon: Ancic
US Open: Roddick
Masters' Championship: Roddick

2007
Australian Open: Roddick
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Djokovic
US Open: Djokovic
Masters' Championship: Davydenko

2008
Australian Open: Djokovic
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Murray
US Open: Djokovic
Masters' Championship: Djokovic
Olympics: Djokovic

2009
Australian Open: Roddick
French Open: Del Potro
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open:
Masters' Championship:

Year-End Number Ones
2000: Kuerten
2001: Hewitt
2002: Hewitt
2003: Roddick
2004: Roddick (barely over Safin)
2005: Hewitt
2006: Roddick (barely over Davydenko)
2007: Djokovic
2008: Djokovic
2009: Roddick, most likely

Number of Slams for Players
Roddick: 7
Hewitt: 6
Djokovic: 6
Safin: 3
Nalbandian: 1
Murray: 1
Del Potro: 1
Davydenko: 1
Ancic: 1
Moya: 1

I think if the Fedal duopoly did not exist, that Roddick and Djokovic would be the clear beneficiaries. Roddick would undoubtedly have won a bunch of slams if he didn't have to face Federer, the one player he can't beat. And in 2007 and 2008, I believe Djokovic would have dominated if there was no Federer or Nadal. He was clearly the best clay court player outside of those two so I believe he would have won Roland Garros both years; I see him likely taking both US Opens that he lost to Federer in; he won the 2008 AO anyways, and I think he would have squeaked out the 2007 Wimbledon as no one besides Federer and Nadal were playing very well. Hewitt would've also benefitted from this, probably taking a few US Opens and Wimbledons. Apart from that, Nalbandian and Davydenko would probably be slam winners; Safin would likely have won 3, and Murray and Del Potro would already be started in their slam count.

Most likely?

Sapeod
07-26-2009, 01:22 AM
Most likely?
Well he would've had two slams. That would've put him quite a fair bit ahead of Murray and Djokovic in the race and ultimately the rankings.

BigJohn
07-26-2009, 01:27 AM
Wow, there would be so many Djokovic books/monographies!

And 2008, so close to that elusive Golden Slam, so close... :sad:

alfonsojose
07-26-2009, 01:37 AM
Kolya has been another victim of JesusFed, being stopped ins some SFs and QFs but, as usual, MTF ignores him :shrug:

leng jai
07-26-2009, 01:41 AM
Kolya has been another victim of JesusFed, being stopped ins some SFs and QFs but, as usual, MTF ignores him :shrug:

Hes been put as the 2006 AO winner in the OP, when clearly the three most in form players were Fat Dave, Haasi and Bagdhatis.

Burrow
07-26-2009, 01:49 AM
Well he would've had two slams. That would've put him quite a fair bit ahead of Murray and Djokovic in the race and ultimately the rankings.

Who says he would have had Australia?

leng jai
07-26-2009, 01:50 AM
Who says he would have had Australia?

This thread is just retarded.

Sapeod
07-26-2009, 01:53 AM
Who says he would have had Australia?
Because that's what it says in OP. I'm going with what it says in the OP. Verdasco could've won it, yes :shrug: but IMO Roddick would've beaten him.

ballbasher101
07-26-2009, 02:25 AM
This thread is the only way some players will ever win majors :lol:. Can you imagine Nando winning a major in real life :eek:

lessthanjake
07-26-2009, 02:37 AM
Highly debatable whether he would beat Philippoussis.

Yes, debateable. But I could only choose one. Roddick had been playing quite well that tournament. So had Philipoussis obviously, but I picked Roddick because I just think that the better overall player tends to almost always win in GS finals.

Very random choice. The obvious would be Mariano "roid monkey" Puerta, who even took a set off Nadal in the final.

Here was my logic. Without Federer, the 4th round matchup would have been Gonzalez v. Moya. Without Nadal, the 4th round matchup would've been Grosjean v. Gasquet. Gonzalez v. Moya would have been quite close. Grosjean probably would've beaten Gasquet. Whoever won the Gonzalez/Moya match would have beaten Hanescu, and I think Ferrer would have beaten Grosjean. I think Moya/Gonzalez would have beaten Ferrer in a close match in the semis, and then it would be the finals. Puerta was playing well but he had just survived two straight 5-setters; he was likely tired. Regardless, I always think that the better player does not get upset in the finals, and Puerta would be the lesser player against whoever he played. So realistically, I think it could've been Gonzalez, Moya, OR Ferrer. I gave it to Moya because I had to pick and he knows how to win RG. I don't pretend to be sure of that choice though.

Wimbledon: Hewitt

Coin toss between him and Roddick.

Yeah it was. I wasn't sure, but I know Roddick himself has said he was not playing well in the 2005 Wimbledon. I gave Hewitt the nod for that reason, and just on an inkling in general. Again, I had to pick.

Australian Open: Davydenko

Are you sure he would beat Baghdatis?


No, but the cream seems to rise to the top in GS finals, no matter how well the lesser player has played up until then. Davydenko is the better player, so I picked him.

Masters' Championship: Roddick

Nah, Roddick got schooled by Nalbandian in this tournament. Here, the answer would have to be Blake.

He didn't get schooled. He lost in straight sets, but one was in a tiebreak in one of them. Roddick gave Federer his toughest match of the tournament (won the first set, and was in a tiebreak in the 2nd), and likely would have beaten whoever else was in Federer's place in the round robin if he played that well against them. This would have put him in the semis, probably against Davydenko or Robredo (in the absence of Nadal). On the fast courts of the Masters Cup, Roddick would likely beat either of those men, and make the final against Blake. Blake was playing well, but he got owned by Federer in the final, and I just feel like he would have come down to earth against Roddick too.

2007
Australian Open: Roddick

Gonzalez was playing at a much higher level, he would have demolished him.

It's possible. Roddick had been playing well before his match with Federer, though maybe not as well as Gonzalez. However, this was another pick that is based on my philosophy that the surprise GS finalist almost never wins in the finals no matter how well they have been playing up until then. Granted, that is not ALWAYS true, but it is the reason I did not give this to Gonzalez or the previous AO to Baghdatis.

Masters' Championship: Davydenko

Why not David Ferrer?


Just an inkling. Ferrer might have won, but the fact that he got ever more schooled by Federer than Davydenko had been made me pick Davydenko. Obviously that's not the best logic, but this IS just a guessing game after all. I would see no problem with thinking Ferrer would have won this though, given how well he played up until the final.

Australian Open: Roddick

I'd favour Verdasco over him.


Again, I pick the favorite in the finals, because surprise finalists who are in their first GS finals rarely win. Of course, there are exceptions such as Gaudio and Johansson, but for the most part this is true. Verdasco was playing extremely well, but Roddick surely would have been the favorite.

French Open: Del Potro

The match against Soderling would be 50/50.

You're probably right. I just don't think that Soderling would ever have won RG. Del Potro faced a pretty tough draw (Troicki, Andreev, Tsonga, and Robredo) before he faced Federer, and had only dropped one set the entire tournament. He would have straight setted Monfils or Haas or whoever he faced in the semis if he played the first three sets like he played them against Federer in the semifinals. In the finals, I just would be banking on Soderling being a headcase in his first finals (he wasn't a headcase against Federer, but he didn't play well). Del Potro IS a better clay courter than Soderling, despite the fact that he beat Nadal

lessthanjake
07-26-2009, 02:51 AM
Hes been put as the 2006 AO winner in the OP, when clearly the three most in form players were Fat Dave, Haasi and Bagdhatis.

Davydenko actually took more games from Federer than Haas did (or Baghdatis for that matter) though Haas lost in 5 sets instead of 4. Nalbandian lost to Baghdatis, so he clearly would not have won. I see Haas v. Davydenko as leaning towards Davydenko. Davydenko played better that year. He had played better at the very end of the year before, and he played better for the next few months. This was the year he was #3 in the world, and he was playing much more consistently in slams than Haas was. I really like Haas; he is actually one of my favorite players to watch. I thought going into this that he would end up with a slam, but in the end I just don't think he would have beaten Davydenko who played very good tennis that year.

As for Baghdatis, I just never choose surprise finalists in Grand Slams. They almost never win.

Michael Bluth
07-26-2009, 02:59 AM
Nalbandian would have gotten the 2004 AO and the 2006 Roland Garros without Fedal.

He gave Fed his toughest match of that tournament, and would have been facing a tired Safin.

In 2006 Roland Garros he wouldn't have gotten injured if it were a different match and would have beaten anyone else that tourney and looked like he would have beaten Fed had he not gotten injured.

He also would have picked up Rome in 06 without Fedal and possibly Madrid as well.

In addition, the 2004 AO may have had a chain reaction effect, for example in the 2006 AO semi Nalby clearly choked against Baghdatis, but with the confidence of having already won a slam maybe that doesn't happen and he wins the AO in 2006 as well. That's my theory.

So Nalby would have 3 slams and the year-end no.1 in 2006.

Here's a fun way to eat up space: Who would win each of their 30 masters series titles?

Fed:

2002 Hamburg: Kuerten or Safin.
2004 Indian Wells: Agassi
2004 Hamburg: Coria
2004 Canada: Roddick.
2005 Indian Wells: Hewitt.
2005 Miami: Agassi
2005 Hamburg: Gasquet
2005 Cincinatti: Roddick
2006 Indian Wells: Blake
2006 Miami: Ljubicic or Blake.
2006 Canada: Gasquet or Gonzalez.
2006 Madrid: Nalbandian or Gonzalez.
2007 Hamburg: Moya.
2007 Cincinatti: Hewitt.
2009 Madrid: Djokovic.

Nadal:

2005 Monte Carlo: Gasquet
2005 Rome: Coria
2005 Canada: Agassi
2005 Madrid: Ljubicic.
2006 Monte Carlo: Gaudio.
2006 Rome: Nalbandian, though Almagro might have a shot.
2007 Indian Wells: Djokovic,
2007 Monte Carlo: Berdych or Ferrero.
2007 Rome: Davydenko
2008 Monte Carlo: Nalbandian.
2008 Hamburg: Djokovic
2008 Canada: Gasquet.
2009 Indian Wells: Roddick or Nalbandian.
2009 Monte Carlo: Djokovic
2009 Rome: Djokovic.

lessthanjake
07-26-2009, 03:02 AM
Nalbandian would have gotten the 2004 AO and the 2006 Roland Garros without Fedal.

He gave Fed his toughest match of that tournament, and would have been facing a tired Safin.


The decision between Safin and Nalbandian in the 2004 AO was possibly my toughest decision. I changed it at the last second. It could have gone both ways, but I picked Safin because he has been a VERY good player at the AO in general throughout his career.

Black Adam
07-26-2009, 03:18 AM
Federer and Nadal have dominated the last 6 years or so. How would this decade have gone if those two players had not been there. Here's how I see the grand slams, Masters Championship, and Olympics having gone, as well as who the year-end #1 would've been:

Results

2000
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Kuerten
Wimbledon: Sampras
US Open: Safin
Masters Championship: Kuerten
Olympics: Kafelnikov

2001
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Kuerten
Wimbledon: Ivanisevic
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Hewitt

2002
Australian Open: Johansson
French Open: Costa
Wimbledon: Hewitt
US Open: Sampras
Masters' Championship: Hewitt

2003
Australian Open: Agassi
French Open: Ferrero
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open: Roddick
Masters' Championship: RoddickAgassi

2004
Australian Open: Safin
French Open: Gaudio
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open: Hewitt
Masters' Championship: Safin
Olympics: Massu

2005
Australian Open: Safin
French Open: Moya Puerta, leading to one of tennis most dramatic and embarassing moments.
Wimbledon: Hewitt
US Open: Hewitt Sorry but no. Agassi would have ended his career ahead of that punk Lendl.
Masters' Championship: Nalbandian

2006
Australian Open: Davydenko. Again no. No way would have Davydenko beaten Bagdatis.
French Open: Nalbandian
Wimbledon: Ancic
US Open: Roddick
Masters' Championship: Roddick

2007
Australian Open: Roddick Gonzalez was just too hot.
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Djokovic No way. Gasquet.
US Open: Djokovic
Masters' Championship: Davydenko I would have actually seen Ferrer taking this one.

2008
Australian Open: Djokovic
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Murray
US Open: Djokovic Sorry but Murray would have won based on momentum of finally beating Djokovic in the run up to USO.
Masters' Championship: Djokovic
Olympics: Djokovic

2009
Australian Open: Roddick
French Open: Del Potro
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open:
Masters' Championship:

Year-End Number Ones
2000: Kuerten
2001: Hewitt
2002: Hewitt
2003: Roddick
2004: Roddick (barely over Safin Hewitt)
2005: Hewitt
2006: Roddick (barely over Davydenko)
2007: Djokovic
2008: Djokovic
2009: Roddick, most likely Coin toss between Roddick and Murray

Number of Slams for Players
Roddick: 7
Hewitt: 6
Djokovic: 6
Safin: 3
Moya: 2
Nalbandian: 1
Murray: 1
Del Potro: 1
Davydenko: 1
Ancic: 1

I think if the Fedal duopoly did not exist, that Roddick and Djokovic would be the clear beneficiaries. Roddick would undoubtedly have won a bunch of slams if he didn't have to face Federer, the one player he can't beat. And in 2007 and 2008, I believe Djokovic would have dominated if there was no Federer or Nadal. He was clearly the best clay court player outside of those two so I believe he would have won Roland Garros both years; I see him likely taking both US Opens that he lost to Federer in; he won the 2008 AO anyways, and I think he would have squeaked out the 2007 Wimbledon as no one besides Federer and Nadal were playing very well. Hewitt would've also benefitted from this, probably taking a few US Opens and Wimbledons. Apart from that, Nalbandian and Davydenko would probably be slam winners; Safin would likely have won 3, and Murray and Del Potro would already be started in their slam count.
Lovely thread but there are some I don't agree with.



However, my position is clear on WHAT IFS. A waste of time although this was a nice way to waste some time.

zethand
07-26-2009, 03:19 AM
what is this crap?

Corey Feldman
07-26-2009, 03:42 AM
imagine the tennis world if that strutting peacock yank had won 7 GS's instead of the 1, which he didnt even deserve --> see Nalbandian semi final and USTA scheduling, he did win.

so unbearable, he'd have made Floyd Mayweather look as humble as Edberg.

straitup
07-26-2009, 03:46 AM
Davydenko actually took more games from Federer than Haas did (or Baghdatis for that matter) though Haas lost in 5 sets instead of 4. Nalbandian lost to Baghdatis, so he clearly would not have won. I see Haas v. Davydenko as leaning towards Davydenko. Davydenko played better that year. He had played better at the very end of the year before, and he played better for the next few months. This was the year he was #3 in the world, and he was playing much more consistently in slams than Haas was. I really like Haas; he is actually one of my favorite players to watch. I thought going into this that he would end up with a slam, but in the end I just don't think he would have beaten Davydenko who played very good tennis that year.

As for Baghdatis, I just never choose surprise finalists in Grand Slams. They almost never win.

Agreed, I would have chosen Davydenko as well...I think Baghdatis' run would've ended in the final of the AO even if Fed wasn't there. And I was watching clips of that Davydenko match...Haas certainly is tough for Federer to handle, but I think Federer usually wins those because he picks up his game. But I think that if Davydenko didn't have his mental problems against Federer, he is certainly a bigger threat than Haas.

Plus Davydenko really should've beaten Federer in 4...he had a bunch of set points in the third and an early lead in the fourth.

DrJules
07-26-2009, 08:06 AM
Interesting considering what if

In the 50's and 60's when the best amateurs went professional this is effectively what happened. Federer and Nadal after their first 5/6 would have gone professional leaving the rest to win the titles. It is why all pre 1968 results would have looked totally different if all players allowed to play.

MacTheKnife
07-26-2009, 01:35 PM
Interesting considering what if

In the 50's and 60's when the best amateurs went professional this is effectively what happened. Federer and Nadal after their first 5/6 would have gone professional leaving the rest to win the titles. It is why all pre 1968 results would have looked totally different if all players allowed to play.

Very good analogy. It is interesting to think about and discuss. Good thread and a lot of work by the OP. Good job.

It's also good to read a THREAD without Fedal for a change.

Action Jackson
07-26-2009, 01:44 PM
Actually it does have Fedal in it? What ifs, buts, could bes, should bes, would bes.

timafi
07-26-2009, 02:27 PM
thankfully Roger came around because a Roddick and his 1 dimentional game would have won more slams
Hewitt too
this would have been awful:tape:

MacTheKnife
07-26-2009, 02:54 PM
Actually it does have Fedal in it? What ifs, buts, could bes, should bes, would bes.

I think you know what I mean. Just refreshing to not see a worship thread. It's kind of fun at times to speculate. I do it all the time, "what if" I hadn't married my first wife.. :haha:

Goldenoldie
07-26-2009, 03:32 PM
Interesting speculation, and just as valid as all the "who was greater X or Y?" threads.

angry1
07-26-2009, 04:02 PM
2008
Australian Open: Djokovic
French Open: Djokovic
Wimbledon: Murray
US Open: Djokovic
Masters' Championship: Djokovic
Olympics: Djokovic

2009
Australian Open: Roddick
French Open: Del Potro
Wimbledon: Roddick
US Open:
Masters' Championship:


From a Murray-centric POV I don't get how he would have won Wimbledon last year.He may have gone out to a Fedal defeat but he was crushed and would have lost to someone else IMO.I would have given him USO 08 though.I presume you don't have knock on effects,as if Murray had won W last year I doubt he'd have blown it against even an improved Roddick this year.

rocketassist
07-26-2009, 04:58 PM
Djokovic would have about three slams and not six, Roddick about five, Hewitt about six and Murray two. Del Potro maybe one as well, or Soderling.

That said, would Soderling have lost his fourth rounder this year as he wouldn't have been on a wave of belief from beating Rafito...

MatchFederer
07-26-2009, 05:08 PM
ALL THE F*****G DRAWS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT GIVEN THAT THE NATURE OF HISTORY WOULD HAVE ALTERED WITHOUT THE TWO PLAYERS EXISTING. Or at least this is likely.

You cannot compare the draws and likely winners, the draws would have been different!


:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

Kinda cool thread, but all the logic that has been attempted in this thread is horrendously flawed.


Dreadful.

Maxon Tutnplok
07-26-2009, 05:40 PM
After at this list of potential slam winners, all I can say is... thank god for Fedal

jcempire
07-26-2009, 06:18 PM
Ridiculous thread.

I think that's a very interest Thread. I like it. Rank No 1 thread

casabe
07-26-2009, 06:54 PM
Nalbandian lost that Roland Garros because he got injured, not because Federer stopped him.

Nalbandian would have almost the same career results with or without Fed-Nadal

I was thinking the same. if hawk eye existed in 2003 USO he wouldnt be slamless, but fedal has nothing to do with it

angry1
07-26-2009, 07:28 PM
I was thinking the same. if hawk eye existed in 2003 USO he wouldnt be slamless, but fedal has nothing to do with it

I've forgotten what variety of bad call it was,having not seen the match just read about his misfortune.

Was it one he definitely would have challenged or a shot that didn't end the point from Roddick that was out?

Black Adam
07-26-2009, 08:03 PM
I've forgotten what variety of bad call it was,having not seen the match just read about his misfortune.

Was it one he definitely would have challenged or a shot that didn't end the point from Roddick that was out?

There were no Bad call at all.
If you are going to whinge you should at least know the facts. The Matchpoint for Bandy was saved with an unreturnable Service winner. However at 7-7 a spectator yelled out on a ball that was in and Nalby stopped playing and Roddick won the rally through a Nalbandian lazy unforced error and served out the breaker. The rest is history. Point is if you're gonna whine, whine against the partisan New York crowd who were already upset by Agassi's loss earlier that day.
M7uqwh932kI

angry1
07-26-2009, 09:07 PM
There were no Bad call at all.
If you are going to whinge you should at least know the facts. The Matchpoint for Bandy was saved with an unreturnable Service winner. However at 7-7 a spectator yelled out on a ball that was in and Nalby stopped playing and Roddick won the rally through a Nalbandian lazy unforced error and served out the breaker. The rest is history. Point is if you're gonna whine, whine against the partisan New York crowd who were already upset by Agassi's loss earlier that day.
M7uqwh932kI

Alright I said I couldn't remember what happened.The guy I replied to mentioned hawkeye so I assumed that it was a bad line call.

I wasn't whinging because I have no preference between the players involved.It's mentioned so often without explanation as to why he was "unlucky" that I sought clarification.So thanks for that.

mark73
07-26-2009, 10:15 PM
ALL THE F*****G DRAWS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT GIVEN THAT THE NATURE OF HISTORY WOULD HAVE ALTERED WITHOUT THE TWO PLAYERS EXISTING. Or at least this is likely.

You cannot compare the draws and likely winners, the draws would have been different!


:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

Kinda cool thread, but all the logic that has been attempted in this thread is horrendously flawed.


Dreadful.


Completly agree. The draws would have been different...but the players themselves would have existed (or at least most of them as atp players). I think from the earlier part of the fedal years hewitt and roddick would have dominated outside of the french open. Later on Djokovic and Murray. Of course safin and nalbandian may have won some as well since no fed would have given them more hope. This psychological aspect changes things. Little things like haas rolling his ankle would almost certainly not have happened..so at least one slam for haas. etc etc.

MatchFederer
07-26-2009, 10:49 PM
Completly agree. The draws would have been different...but the players themselves would have existed (or at least most of them as atp players). I think from the earlier part of the fedal years hewitt and roddick would have dominated outside of the french open. Later on Djokovic and Murray. Of course safin and nalbandian may have won some as well since no fed would have given them more hope. This psychological aspect changes things. Little things like haas rolling his ankle would almost certainly not have happened..so at least one slam for haas. etc etc.

Exactly, nice to see some sense in the thread.

casabe
07-27-2009, 12:10 AM
Alright I said I couldn't remember what happened.The guy I replied to mentioned hawkeye so I assumed that it was a bad line call.

I wasn't whinging because I have no preference between the players involved.It's mentioned so often without explanation as to why he was "unlucky" that I sought clarification.So thanks for that.

There was an important bad call, a backhand passing shot dtl from david in the fifth serving 3-4.....ball was call out and replay show it good. Roddick broke and serve for match with that ball.

lessthanjake
07-27-2009, 01:20 AM
ALL THE F*****G DRAWS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT GIVEN THAT THE NATURE OF HISTORY WOULD HAVE ALTERED WITHOUT THE TWO PLAYERS EXISTING. Or at least this is likely.

You cannot compare the draws and likely winners, the draws would have been different!


:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

Kinda cool thread, but all the logic that has been attempted in this thread is horrendously flawed.


Dreadful.

Dont think I havent thought of the fact that draws would be different. I have. I am just simplifying things by looking at how the draw went, because without that I would just be babbling with nothing to guide me at all. I figure even if the draw were different, the players who went far in reality, would STILL have gone far without Fedal even if they wouldve faced different players. That's a logical assumption.

Most of my decisions would have been the same even if I were ignoring the draw and just thinking about who would have been the best on whatever surface at whatever time. As in, Roddick and Hewitt still wouldve been the ones winning Wimbledons and US Opens, and Djokovic still would have dominated 2007 and 2008 IMO.

MacTheKnife
07-27-2009, 01:24 AM
Dont think I havent thought of the fact that draws would be different. I have. I am just simplifying things by looking at how the draw went, because without that I would just be babbling with nothing to guide me at all. I figure even if the draw were different, the players who went far in reality, would STILL have gone far without Fedal even if they wouldve faced different players. That's a logical assumption.

Most of my decisions would have been the same even if I were ignoring the draw and just thinking about who would have been the best on whatever surface at whatever time. As in, Roddick and Hewitt still wouldve been the ones winning Wimbledons and US Opens, and Djokovic still would have dominated 2007 and 2008 IMO.

Good thread and kind of fun to think about. What the hell goes on here that isn't mostly speculation.. ;)

MatchFederer
07-27-2009, 01:25 AM
They cannot possibly be the same if you have any sense. Different draws, different match ups. Of course, you can guess with some certainty that certain guys would have won the majors but when and where, it can't be determined. All that can be guessed with any degree of non lunacy is who would win and how much rather than exactly when and where. This exercise IS pointless given that what we know to be the past would not be the same past had Fedal not been there.

Like I said earlier, I like the thread, it's the LOGIC I despise. :P

More interesting perhaps to debate, and without all this specific nonsense, would be how many slams might certain players have won merely without Federer. Nadal claims what Federer doesn't but that still leaves a LOT up for grabs. Anywho...

mark73
07-27-2009, 01:59 AM
They cannot possibly be the same if you have any sense. Different draws, different match ups. Of course, you can guess with some certainty that certain guys would have won the majors but when and where, it can't be determined. All that can be guessed with any degree of non lunacy is who would win and how much rather than exactly when and where. This exercise IS pointless given that what we know to be the past would not be the same past had Fedal not been there.

Like I said earlier, I like the thread, it's the LOGIC I despise. :P

More interesting perhaps to debate, and without all this specific nonsense, would be how many slams might certain players have won merely without Federer. Nadal claims what Federer doesn't but that still leaves a LOT up for grabs. Anywho...

Oxygene7..you are my intellectual equal...well almost :cool:

lessthanjake
07-27-2009, 07:14 AM
They cannot possibly be the same if you have any sense. Different draws, different match ups. Of course, you can guess with some certainty that certain guys would have won the majors but when and where, it can't be determined. All that can be guessed with any degree of non lunacy is who would win and how much rather than exactly when and where. This exercise IS pointless given that what we know to be the past would not be the same past had Fedal not been there.

Like I said earlier, I like the thread, it's the LOGIC I despise. :P

More interesting perhaps to debate, and without all this specific nonsense, would be how many slams might certain players have won merely without Federer. Nadal claims what Federer doesn't but that still leaves a LOT up for grabs. Anywho...

Again, I understand the logic problem. I knew someone would point it out, and it is not at all something I didnt think of before I made the thread.

But it is a little more interesting IMO to talk about specific slams rather than just who would have won how many slams. That's why I did the thread this way.

It is all silly because we cannot even say "______ did not play well at all in 2008, so they would not have won a slam that year" because without Fedal, that player might have done better in the years prior, and had more confidence in the year they didnt play well, and thus done better. It's all the butterfly effect; and because of that, we cannot truly make any rational and logical attempt to gauge what would have happened in the future given a change in inital conditions (no Fedal). The results would be changed from the very beginning, and those first results changing would have changed subsequent results even further, etc etc. I understand all that at least as well as you do; trust me.

It is just supposed to be a fun thread, though. I did not feel the need to apply certain intellectual standards to it because of that. I also did not want to apply those intellectual standards because keeping the butterfly effect in mind, the only truly intellectual answer to the question I posed is that there is really no way to know what would have happened at all. That's not amusing.

FedFan_2007
07-27-2009, 07:44 AM
Silly useless :retard: thread.

HattonWBA
07-27-2009, 07:51 AM
Davydenko and Nalbandian could have won a slam, davydenko given actual results and nalbandian would have most likely had more incentive to win.