If Federer wasn't around, would anyone dominate? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Federer wasn't around, would anyone dominate?

BackhandMissile
01-31-2010, 12:26 PM
Let's try and take Federer out of the scene for a second. Or let's assume he retires tonight. Will anyone actually dominate the circuit? By domination I mean 2-3 slams a year, consistently.

tealeaves
01-31-2010, 12:26 PM
no one.

Del_Toro
01-31-2010, 12:34 PM
I don't think so. With Federer out of the picture a bunch of clowns would be winning GS titles, but none of them would be a dominant force.
Pretty much like the time span between Sampras fall and Federer rising when Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Goran, Costa, Korda, Moyá, Johanson, Gaudio, and the likes were winning GS's.

From that era the only decent GS winners were the oldies (Sampras himself and Agassi), Guga, Rafter and Hewitt.

Art&Soul
01-31-2010, 01:46 PM
Rodduck of course :D

Action Jackson
01-31-2010, 01:48 PM
If my uncle had a pussy, then it would be an aunt.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 01:48 PM
I think I've seen that other fellow (Spanish... pretty... :p) the past five years or so pretty much dominating the whole tour if it weren't for Feds! Five years (minus some minor blibs) at #1 or #2 - not too shabby I'd say. ;)

icedevil0289
01-31-2010, 01:51 PM
I think I've seen that other fellow (Spanish... pretty... :p) the past five years or so pretty much dominating the whole tour if it weren't for Feds! Five years (minus some minor blibs) at #1 or #2 - not too shabby I'd say. ;)

he would definitely dominate clay and have a few more wimbledons, but I don't know about hardcourt. There are quite a few players who can beat him on hardcourt. I don't think rafa would be winning 3/4 slams like rogi did for 3 years.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 01:54 PM
he would definitely dominate clay and have a few more wimbledons, but I don't know about hardcourt. There are quite a few players who can beat him on hardcourt. I don't think rafa would be winning 3/4 slams like rogi did for 3 years.

No, but Rafa's achievements would still be regarded as 'domination' in the grander scheme of tennis history. It's just that Federer set the bar so high with his achievements the past five years that unfortunately, people now seem to expect any other undisputed top player to be able to do the same or near-to the same. Which isn't realistic as Feds is truly a freak-of-nature.

Federer=God
01-31-2010, 01:56 PM
Rafa would have been #1 earlier but that's about it. No slam domination.

If you disperse those 15 out I presume it would be like this:

Philippousis 1
Safin 1
Roddick 4
Hewitt 1
Agassi 1
Baghdatis 1
Nadal 2
Gonzalez 1
Djokovic 1
Murray 2
Del Potro 1

Roddick is the main loser here, but a much wider spread of former champions. Fed, Rafa, Roddick, Hewitt and Pony are the only former champions on tour.

icedevil0289
01-31-2010, 01:57 PM
No, but Rafa's achievements would still be regarded as 'domination' in the grander scheme of tennis history. It's just that Federer set the bar so high with his achievements the past five years that unfortunately, people now seem to expect any other undisputed top player to be able to do the same or near-to the same. Which isn't realistic as Feds is truly a freak-of-nature.
that's true. roger has spoiled us in a sense.

bizzle
01-31-2010, 01:57 PM
Nadal would have dominated for the past 4 years or so - but not on the same level as Feds.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 02:00 PM
Rafa would have been #1 earlier but that's about it. No slam domination.

Roger barely 'dominated' RG the past five years I'd say, and Rafa might well have had 3 Wimbledons right now if it weren't for Roger. That would have meant 8 GS titles already and would have surely put him in the list of 'greatest players to ever play the game', imho (and I still think he belongs in that list even right now). And perhaps five years at #1...
Just the raw luck to play in Roger's era, as it is Roger's raw luck to be denied the RG title 4 times by Rafa.

Federer=God
01-31-2010, 02:20 PM
The more interesting question is, without Rafa where would Fed be?

Would likely have won AO 09, Wimby08 and at least 2 more FO's including a grand slam.

Byrd
01-31-2010, 02:23 PM
People dominating surfaces maybe, but not in the grand schemes of things.

Noleta
01-31-2010, 03:08 PM
Rafa,like he did in 2008.Though not dominate like Fed:)

Persimmon
01-31-2010, 03:11 PM
No.

vn01
01-31-2010, 03:16 PM
Yes,Rafa.But not like Federer.The things would be veeeeery different.But from 2007 Rafa would dominate till May 2009

thrust
01-31-2010, 03:46 PM
Let's try and take Federer out of the scene for a second. Or let's assume he retires tonight. Will anyone actually dominate the circuit? By domination I mean 2-3 slams a year, consistently.

Probably not. Nadal, if he were physically healthy, would probably be the top player but not good enough to be dominant off clay. Unfortunately, Nadal seems to be having chronic physical problems which will diminish his achievements on hard surfaces. Besides Federer, and a healthy Nadal, the rest of the field are tier two players, especially in the Slams.

out_here_grindin
01-31-2010, 04:06 PM
once Federer retires, a period of parity will follow.

BackhandMissile
01-22-2014, 09:49 PM
How naive we used to be

Caesar1844
01-22-2014, 10:10 PM
So much bumping of shit threads at the moment.

TheRealNumberOne
01-22-2014, 10:52 PM
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1874/threadnecromancerw.jpg