Mens Tennis Forums banner

If fed-murray-nole all same age feds slam count at 32 years old would be 17?

  • Yes, fed would clean up slams between age 26-32

    Votes: 27 51.9%
  • No because fed at 26-27 could not beat nole-murray-nadal of today

    Votes: 10 19.2%
  • He may have even more slams bc nadal, nole, murray would be retired by age 30.

    Votes: 15 28.8%

  • Total voters
    52
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
People always talk about federer and the weak era. My point has always been that even if federer were in the nadal/djokovic/murray age era he would have just as many slams because he would gain many of them between 26-30 and during 21-25 would be unstoppable against anyone on grass and us open and only nole could beat him on blue australian open.

Look at tennis now. Nadal can barely win on clay at 27, murray is bascially done at 26 playing horridly and djokovic has gotten breatsn by 32 year old fed 2/3 times and nearly at one of the slowest hard courts indian wells.

Lets also not forget that in this scenerio at many slams nadal and djokovic woudl be 2nd and 3rd seeded and we see what nole can do to nadal and chances are federer would win RG a few times as nadal won't be reaching finals till he is 30.

Do you agree that fed would have more or less the same slams if he had gone through tennis with nole-murray-nadal being 26-27 and was now 32 years and still playing? Interstingly, i doubt nadal. nole, murray would even be playing tennis at 32-33 yo so who would even be beating fed now...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
Yes you are right. The weak era theory is BS spread by Fed haters when they saw Roger had a much better overall record than any of their favs.

Olderer beat absolute peak Nole in RG and again had match points against him in the USO which he choked. Also Murray has been completely owned in slams by Fed so he's a non factor anyway. The ONLY player that could have(and has) troubled prime Fed was/is Nadal . So its best to ignore all the bitter weak era crap cause Fed would have more or less the same amount of slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,396 Posts
Fedtards still gloating because he beat an injured Djokovic, I see :haha:

Then again, not surprising considering their constant gloating with regards to him beating injured opponents between 2004 and 2007.
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
He should have 16-22 slams in any era. Especially if he was the same age as BaldDull, since Roger at 30 > Dull at 30 on any surface bar slow clay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
You're absolutely right. Consider Peak Federer vs Peak Nadal and vs Peak Djokovic.

1- Peak Fed vs Peak Nadal:

AO: Nadal
FO: Nadal
W: Federer
US: Federer

2- Peak Fed vs Peak Djokovic:

AO: Toss up
FO: Federer
W: Federer
US: Federer

Conclusion:

1- Wimbledon and US are a lock for Federer.
2- AO, Nadal is never consistent, Federer easily wins a few there.
3- FO, younger Federer is tougher for Rafa, so perhaps 1 or 2 FOs.
4- It's hard to see Djokovic and Nadal winning slams in their 30s. Federer would outlast them and win a few more.

People talking about weak era were asleep from 04-07 and probably never watched Wimbledon 2012.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,211 Posts
Pointless-discussions-geeky-kids-have-scattered-across-the-world-in-classrooms-between-themselves.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,242 Posts
DISCLAIMER: We cannot have a serious discussion about what 'would' happen because it is entirely speculation - however, it can be fun to theorize, so these are my thoughts...

Wimbledon - I can't see anybody (that includes Rafa) touching him here in '07 to '14, so that's 8 Slams straight away. After such a humongous winning stretch I think he would consistently reach QF/SFs but fail to ever win it again.

Roland Garros - '09 would still be his, and I imagine he'd pick up some more titles there in '15, '16, and '17 once Nadal had declined.

US Open - he wouldn't win 5 straight, but he might end up with more overall. 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2018, for example? Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray would prove too much to build up any kind of streak there, but he would pick up a few extra towards the back end of his career.

Australian Open - is difficult to say. '07 and '10 are a lock, but '08, '09, '11, '12 would be tricky. '13 I reckon he would take, and maybe one more in '15-'18.

8 + 4 + 6 + 3 = 21

This largely rests on the basis that he would play until the age of 33+. If he was born in the same year as Djokovic and Murray then I'm confident he would pick up more Slams purely due to longevity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,463 Posts
Meh. He would probably have a couple less, as would Rafa and Novak (Murray who knows, he could be slamless but then again maybe not) simply because there would be harder competition for a smaller amount of slams, as their combined carreers would be concentrated on a shorter time span.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,535 Posts
People always talk about federer and the weak era. My point has always been that even if federer were in the nadal/djokovic/murray age era he would have just as many slams because he would gain many of them between 26-30 and during 21-25 would be unstoppable against anyone on grass and us open and only nole could beat him on blue australian open.

Look at tennis now. Nadal can barely win on clay at 27, murray is bascially done at 26 playing horridly and djokovic has gotten breatsn by 32 year old fed 2/3 times and nearly at one of the slowest hard courts indian wells.

Lets also not forget that in this scenerio at many slams nadal and djokovic woudl be 2nd and 3rd seeded and we see what nole can do to nadal and chances are federer would win RG a few times as nadal won't be reaching finals till he is 30.

Do you agree that fed would have more or less the same slams if he had gone through tennis with nole-murray-nadal being 26-27 and was now 32 years and still playing? Interstingly, i doubt nadal. nole, murray would even be playing tennis at 32-33 yo so who would even be beating fed now...

:facepalm: oh the humanity. In what logical world would fed have have the same amount of slams that he has today? since 08, when nadal, nole, and murray started being real threats to fed he has won 5 slams, compare that to 04-07 he won 11.

Nadal would still dominate RG, I dont think fed would have won 7 wimbys, more like 4, USO an AO would be a battle between fed an nole.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,104 Posts
Being the same age as Rafa, Djoker and Andy would not have allowed Federer to dominate as consistently as he did before they came to the scene/matured. He would not have as many weeks at no. 1. But I still think he would have won the most slams.
Let's admit it, between 2004-2007 he was winning a lot of matches just by stepping on court.
AO - I think he would have won less. 2 AOs.
RG - Even if 2009 didn't happen, I still think he would have snatched 1 or 2 after Nadal declined. 2 RGs.
W - He would have won less, no question. Murray is a beast on grass. Rafa would have still snatch some, probably Djokovic too. 5 Ws.
USO - Of the big 4, he probably would have the most. 4 USOs.
So that's 13 slams.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,242 Posts
:facepalm: oh the humanity. In what logical world would fed have have the same amount of slams that he has today? since 08, when nadal, nole, and murray started being real threats to fed he has won 5 slams, compare that to 04-07 he won 11.

Nadal would still dominate RG, I dont think fed would have won 7 wimbys, more like 4, USO an AO would be a battle between fed an nole.
But a lot of that is to do with drop in form and resulting losses to the likes of Soderling, Berdych, and Tsonga. In '04-'09 Federer was not losing matches against this caliber of player (i.e. non-Slam champions).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,825 Posts
People tend to forget this: If Federer was younger he would be a different player. He grow up as a player aimed to play on faster courts and against attacking/S&V players, and had to adapt his game to slower courts/defensive baseliners era, not to mention the quick technology evolution in the 90's-early 2000's. He was bad luck to got himself between this transition and still had the greatness to adapt his game and be the best in both eras. This is the most underrated achievent of Federer.

If Fed was younger he would adapt himself better to the new reality. He wouldn't probably develop his net game as much as he did, and probably would invest more on his backhand, who knows. People talk how Rafa has a better h2h against Fed, but Rafa had the chance to develop an "anti-fed" game when he was younger, the other way around wasn't possible. Fed was made to crush the older generation, not guys like Rafa-Murray-Nole.
So yes, Fed, as the most talented player of the big4 would have the same number of slams, maybe even more, but he would be a different player from what he is now. He would also have a better h2h against the trio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Guys don't be ridiculously stupid. Who would beat fed at the us open? Absolute peak djokovic still should have lost against 30 year old fed and he's the best hard court player since fed. Prime fed didn't lose to nadal on fast courts and murray at his aboslute peak still baretly won in 5 sets against an exhausted fed at aussie.

Fed's greatness made them better anyways. Fed with them would have stomped them all on hard courts. He's beating murray and nole now on hard at 33 years old for god's sake. Lets not forget the super saturday- sunday final. Whoever played the match not involving fed would be much more tired in the final and that would be a huge edge for federer without even considering talent. And lets not even add if they all had equivalent equipment. If fed had this raquet in his prime imagine his backhand being even more solid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,211 Posts
Mentality plays such a crucial role that it's impossible to accurately speculate given that one or two defeats here or there could change pretty much everything in a match-up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
:facepalm: oh the humanity. In what logical world would fed have have the same amount of slams that he has today? since 08, when nadal, nole, and murray started being real threats to fed he has won 5 slams, compare that to 04-07 he won 11.

Nadal would still dominate RG, I dont think fed would have won 7 wimbys, more like 4, USO an AO would be a battle between fed an nole.
Yeah and Fed was def at his peak from 2008 on.

Let's see how many slams will nadal,nole and andy win when they turn 27.

You can't expect a player to dominate consistently when they turn 27.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
To answer the OP, Fed would not dominate consistently. But i think he would have a 3 slam season in 1 year.

As for the slams:

AO: very tough to win with peak Nole and Nadal on that slow surface. I give him 2.

RG: i still give him 1 FO. Or even 2. If he plays at his peak like he did in 2011 i say he beats Rafa.

W: let's be honest. It took peakest of peak Nadal to beat Fed at W in his prime. And even he was very close to losing. Nadal would not be guaranteed to reach the final each and everytime as evidenced in 2012 and 2013. Djoker would stand little chance to beat Fed at W. Murray as well IMO. I see him winning 5 or 6.

USO: he would not win 5 straight. But i see him winning in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012. Peak Djoker had to pull a houdini to beat old Fed so Fed has the edge vs him. Nadal has never played him at the USO, but i think Fed would snatch a victory like 2011.

So overall 12 or 13 slams. He would win less slams but so would Rafa, Nole and Andy. Especially the latter 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,154 Posts
There are alot of points of view. No one can say they have reason on their side.

You cant compare player A and player B at 27 years old or any onther age for that matter.

Some players like Rafa blossom early on. Some do it later, Murray and Stan.

Some need 2-3 years and then step up. While others need for some to decline in order to step up.


Now i dont know what kind of pot some of you are smoking this morning but for Fed to win more RG is really pushing it out there.
Rafa always did, always does and always will pose a hard batle for Federer.
Federer could always figure out Nole and Murray. Nole got into Rafas head in 2011 but have been spliting most games after then.

Bottom line is had all 4 been same age and came up together and baring the injury bug i dont think Federer gets 17-302.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
But let's make the opposite: how many slams would Fed have won with Nole and Andy in 2004-2007 instead of Hewitt and Roddick.

I say 9. 2 AO's, 4 W and 3 USO's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
There are alot of points of view. No one can say they have reason on their side.

You cant compare player A and player B at 27 years old or any onther age for that matter.

Some players like Rafa blossom early on. Some do it later, Murray and Stan.

Some need 2-3 years and then step up. While others need for some to decline in order to step up.


Now i dont know what kind of pot some of you are smoking this morning but for Fed to win more RG is really pushing it out there.
Rafa always did, always does and always will pose a hard batle for Federer.
Federer could always figure out Nole and Murray. Nole got into Rafas head in 2011 but have been spliting most games after then.

Bottom line is had all 4 been same age and came up together and baring the injury bug i dont think Federer gets 17-302.
He still gets over 10 and would get the most weeks at no.1 between them, simply because he is more consistent and able to play at a high level all year long
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top