Rank the 'Tier 2' Greats

First topic message reminder :

Time for a subjective question!

Djokovic's eighth win yesterday moves him level with Connors, Lendl and Agassi on the Open Era slam wins league table.

How do rank this sub-group of 'greats'?

	Connors	Lendl	Agassi	Djokovic
Weeks at 1	268	270	101	132*
Tour final wins	1	5	1	4
Masters titles	17	22	17	20
Career slam	No	No	Yes	No

Lendl and Connors are tough to split. I'll give the nod to Jimmy for longevity and amassing his slam total despite hardly ever playing AO and missing RG for 5 of his peak years.

Then Agassi and Djokovic are tough to split.

Agassi has the career slam and won Wimbledon on fast, low bouncing grass in an era of huge servers.

Djokovic leads on weeks at 1, Masters and YEC and is, I would suggest, more dominant than Agassi was.

By a whisker, I'd say Andre.

So for me its:
1) Connors
2) Lendl
3) Agassi
4) Djokovic

How would you rank them?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I think Roddick is a good bet to beat peak Novak on grass.  Don't forget Roddick made three Wimbledon finals and each time he was beaten by Fed.  Is peak Novak better than peak Fed on grass? My answer is no, so, I don't think peak Novak is sure to beat Roddick on grass, not forgetting Roddick had won four titles on fast grass at Queens, don't tell me he's worse than Novak on grass!

You talk about baby Rafa, I don't understand what you mean by baby Rafa. A pre prime Rafa did push Fed to his limit on grass in 2007, and a peak Rafa was formidable on grass, albeit for onky two/three years. So if we assume a peak Novak and a peak Rafa during 2004-2007 minus Fed, again I don't think Novak was going to win many Wimbledon with Rafa and Roddick around.  Novak is certainly not in the class of Fed where grass is concerned.  So, Novak might win two slams a season, maybe with a season where he would win three slams, but Rafa would be there for clay, and one or two Wimbledon too.  Roddick too would win one or two Wimbledon, IMO.

Roddick was a far better player in 09 than he was earlier in his career. In that run, he narrowly edged out Murray despite serving at 75% and being behind on every other conceivable stat. That was his only ever career win versus a top 10 player on grass. When he faced a 19 year old Murray in 06 he was comfortably dismissed. In my view, although grass is Novak's worst surface, he would still be a comfortable favourite against 04-06 Roddick if they played now.

Nadal lost to Novak in 2011 when in his prime. The 07 Nadal was not as accomplished on grass although the match up issue did allow him to push Roger very close. I don't see how the 07 version of Rafa would have caused peak Novak that much difficulty.

I agree Born Slippy.
Djokovic at prime would be favourite for Wimbledon as well as the hard court Slams. French Open I think he'd struggle against Nadal tbh.

I really do think if Djokovic and Federer swapped birth dates, Djokovic would have more Slams. I still do think Federer is a superior player, but not by as much as their stats atm suggest.

Novak had to go five sets to beat a Fed who's past his prime! Roddick was close to beating Fed in 2009, and I don't think Fed is better in 2014 than he's in 2009. I would say Roddick would have better chances of winning in 2004/2005, whilst Novak in 2006, when baby Rafa wasn't ready on grass and Roddick was getting worse on grass. I think Rafa in 2007 would be able to beat Novak on grass, as I feel a peak Fed was already having problem with Rafa on grass that year. I don't think Novak was going to sweep five Wimbledon the way Fed did, so he won't be having as many slams as Fed did.

I didn't say Novak would had 17 Slams, I just think more than what Federer would have had (if Fed had to deal with the competition Djokovic did, and Djokovic with Federer's competition).
Also I think Federer played far better in 2014 final than he did in 2009, he was really off-colour in the 2009 final.

I think Fed would still have more slams than Novak even if it's a peak Novak playing during 2004-2007, as Novak won't be as dominant on grass as Fed. It's quite ridiculous to say that Novak on his worst surface would still be doing as well as Fed on his best surface!! I can't imagine people are implying that!!

Federer - Starts losing post 2007. Past his peak
Nadal - Starts losing post 2010. Past his peak
Djokovic - Starts losing post 2011. What peak?

Fed served better in 2009'than in 2014 IMO.

I think you're shortchanging Fed here. If it's a peak Fed vs the field right now, he still would be winning his many Wimbledon. I'm not sure he would be winning any less slams than Novak would win in 2004-2007. I mean if you assume peak Fed wasn't there in 2004-2007, then we have to assume that peak Novak wasn't here right now! Anyway, Rafa would still be winning his 14 slams regardless of whether it's peak Fed or peak Novak in 2004-2007 or after.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I think Fed would still have more slams than Novak even if it's a peak Novak playing during 2004-2007, as Novak won't be as dominant on grass as Fed.  It's quite ridiculous to say that Novak on his worst surface would still be doing as well as Fed on his best surface!!  I can't imagine people are implying that!!

When have I said that ? I think Federer is a superior player to Djokovic, but if they swapped birth dates Djokovic would have had more Slams- because of the difference in competition. I'm not saying Djokovic would have won 17 Slams in Federer's circumstance.

I don't think Rafa played better on grass in 2011 than in 2007, I mean Rafa was on the upward trend on grass back then, in 2011 he was starting to move downwards. And what matchup problem for Fed on grass vs Rafa? Rafa's topspin forehand wasn't as effective on grass than on clay, if not Rafa would be beating Fed on indoor HCs already back then! It's so convenient to explain away Fed's losses to Rafa based on match up issues! I mean Rafa pushed the grass court King to his limit and yet people think that Novak would be doing as well as the grass court King?

IMBL, how so? If peak Fed is playing right now, who do you think would stop him from winning on grass and HCs, if there's no Novak? I don't think Rafa is good enough to beat peak Fed often to stop Fed from winning multiple Hc and grass slams, though Rafa may still win his 3 HC and 2 grass slams. Murray? Delpo? Cilic? Stan? Really? So, I won't bet that Fed would sure to have fewer slams than a peak Novak playing in 2004-2007.

Nadal 2008 would have taken out prime Djokovic on grass, Nadal 2007 would have been a tough one.
Also I think Federer played better in the final in 2014 than he did in the 2009 final, his forehand was not exactly on fire for either match, but in 2014 he was much steadier in the longer rallies and not making so many unforced errors.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:IMBL, how so?  If peak Fed is playing right now, who do you think would stop him from winning on grass and HCs, if there's no Novak? I don't think Rafa is good enough to beat peak Fed often to stop Fed from winning multiple Hc and grass slams, though Rafa may still win his 3 HC and 2 grass slams.  Murray? Delpo? Cilic? Stan? Really?  So, I won't bet that Fed would sure to have fewer slams than a peak Novak playing in 2004-2007.

Well in 2010 Nadal reached 3 finals, in 2011 he reached 3 finals, in 2012 he reached 2, in 2013 he reached 2, in 2014 he reached 2. So Federer would have to be facing Nadal a lot in the latter stages of matches, much harder for him than the competition he did face.
Meanwhile I do agree with you that prime Djokovic wouldn't be as dominant as Federer in his prime, but he'd still rack up a fair few majors... and I think more majors than Federer would be able to get against the competition Djokovic faced.

Rafa reached three finals in 2010, but only met Novak once, ie at USO. So, we assume it's Fed who met Rafa there. Likewise at USO2011 and 2013. Like I said, i didn't think Rafa was going to beat Fed everytime they met in a HC slam, especially at the USO which is a quicker court than the AO. We also assumed that they met at AO2012 final (Rafa and Novak met four times in HC slam finals), so isnt it fair to assume that Rafa would still win his 3 HC slams (if we include his AO2009 win)? Rafa would still be beating Fed at the FOs, I'm sure about that. Now Wimbledon, Rafa only made one final after 2010, and ie in 2011. Would a peak Fed beat Rafa at Wimbledon in 2011? I certainly think so, though I feel a peak Rafa on grass would still manage to win his 2 Wimbledon, in 2008/2010.

For the other slams that Rafa didn't make the final, Fed would have good chances of winning them, when he had the likes of Murray, Delpo, Stan, Cilic, Tsonga and Berdych to deal with (no Novak of course, that's our assumption).

Rafa reached three finals in 2010, but only met Novak once, ie at USO. So, we assume it's Fed who met Rafa there. Likewise at USO2011 and 2013. Like I said, i didn't think Rafa was going to beat Fed everytime they met in a HC slam, especially at the USO which is a quicker court than the AO. We also assumed that they met at AO2012 final (Rafa and Novak met four times in HC slam finals), so isnt it fair to assume that Rafa would still win his 3 HC slams (if we include his AO2009 win)? Rafa would still be beating Fed at the FOs, I'm sure about that. Now Wimbledon, Rafa only made one final after 2010, and ie in 2011. Would a peak Fed beat Rafa at Wimbledon in 2011? I certainly think so, though I feel a peak Rafa on grass would still manage to win his 2 Wimbledon, in 2008/2010.

For the other slams that Rafa didn't make the final, Fed would have good chances of winning them, when he had the likes of Murray, Delpo, Stan, Cilic, Tsonga and Berdych to deal with (no Novak of course, that's our assumption).

Sorry for the double posts.

I think prime Djokovic is probably a bigger challenge to Nadal than prime Federer, although Nadal has a good record against both in Slams (9-3 and 9-2).

I'm not sure what all this 'peak' nonsense is about. But Federer's problem with Nadal was partly the match up, but more so it was mental. Nadal got in his head that Federer's basic, and very successful, game plan fell to pieces. Lets not forget Federer's H2H with all other left handers is very good. Whilst pretty much all feared Federer, you never get the feeling Nadal ever did.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I think Fed would still have more slams than Novak even if it's a peak Novak playing during 2004-2007, as Novak won't be as dominant on grass as Fed.  It's quite ridiculous to say that Novak on his worst surface would still be doing as well as Fed on his best surface!!  I can't imagine people are implying that!!

When have I said that ? I think Federer is a superior player to Djokovic, but if they swapped birth dates Djokovic would have had more Slams- because of the difference in competition. I'm not saying Djokovic would have won 17 Slams in Federer's circumstance.

Pretty much agree with this IMBL. How many slams has Novak lost to Nadal and Federer? Quite a few. If he only had a Nadal to contend with, and a Nadal from 04-07 who was very beatable on a hardcourt especially for Prime Novak's game I think he would have more than the 8 slams he has today. People lionize Nadal pre-08 because it fits into this narrative that every one is down and the game is down etc. But Nadal post 08 and in my opinion 2010 on is by far a more complete player. His serve only is much better, his flat forehand is better and he is much more comfortable playing and positioning himself on a hardcourt than he was in 04-07. He was basically prior to his victory at Wimbeldon in 08 seen as an incredible clay courter who could play on other surfaces. I think Djokovic in his prime would make pretty easy work of Nadal on the faster surfaces. And he would also dominate Fed's contemporaries Safin, Hewitt, Nalby, Roddick etc. in 5 setters. Again we are not saying that he would 17 slams but he would probably have more than 8 and a lot more than 8.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Rafa reached three finals in 2010, but only met Novak once, ie at USO. So, we assume it's Fed who met Rafa there.  Likewise at USO2011 and 2013.  Like I said, i didn't  think Rafa was going to beat Fed everytime they met in a HC slam, especially at the USO which is a quicker court than the AO.  We also assumed that they met at AO2012 final (Rafa and Novak met four times in HC slam finals), so isnt it fair to assume that Rafa would still win his 3 HC slams (if we include his AO2009 win)? Rafa would still be beating Fed at the FOs, I'm sure about that.  Now Wimbledon, Rafa only made one final after 2010, and ie in 2011. Would a peak Fed beat Rafa at Wimbledon in 2011? I certainly think so, though I feel a peak Rafa on grass would still manage to win his 2 Wimbledon, in 2008/2010.

For the other slams that Rafa didn't make the final, Fed would have good chances of winning them, when he had the likes of Murray, Delpo, Stan, Cilic, Tsonga and Berdych to deal with (no Novak of course, that's our assumption).

What are you talking about Rafa has beaten Fed in the one hardcourt final they played in 09. Nadal is a much more accomplished hardcourt player now then he ever was in Fed's heyday. Nadal of 2010,2011, 2012, etc. would work Federer 04-07 on a hardcourt. He ran him damn close with a WTA serve in 04-07 to begin with. Are we now going with the fiction that in 2009 Federer was old at the age of 28, just a little older than Novak is now. That Federer lost to Nadal early in the year at the AO. Why would Nadal who has 3 slams and countless finals and Masters on the surface now have trouble with prime Federer on a hardcourt?

socal1976 wrote: Are we now going with the fiction that in 2009 Federer was old at the age of 28, just a little older than Novak is now.

This is an interesting point that I hadn't fully considered before.

Age for age, Novak in January 2015 is equivalent to Federer in April 2009 - 27 years and 8 months.

The comparisons go further too. Both are seeking their first RG. For both, Nadal is either struggling or about to struggle with his body. For both, their own generation is falling behind in the h2h and for both, the next generation is not yet a fully fledged threat at the slam.

But, if one were so minded, one might detect a tone in the commentary that Novak's slam total may now be boosted because of these kind conditions, whereas the 3 slams and 1 final sequence that Federer was about to embark is a testament only to how good he is to win at such a ripe old age.

1) SoCal, what are you talking about, when you said Rafa ran Fed damn close with a WTA serve in 2004-2007, when Rafa couldn't even made one single HC slam final? A 22 yo Rafa vs a 27 yo Fed at AO 2009 final was a close affair, I don't see Rafa at age 24-26 any better than peak Fed of 2004-2007. I would say at best they each win a fair share, ie about 50:50, Rafa winning at AO2009/uSO2010. I think peak Fed could win USO2011 and AO2014 if they met in the finals, as I think Rafa wasn't playing that well in both. AO2012 and USO2013, I think it's 50:50 between them.

2) Rafa didn't win many HC slams or Masters did he? If Rafa could lose to Novak at HC Masters, he could also lose to Fed, especially at places like Cincy, Shanghai and Paris.
3) I did say that I would expect Rafa to win his two Wimbledon titles, as he did play very well to win them.

So, my conclusion is that whether it's peak Fed or peak Novak that Rafa has/had to play during 2004-2007 or after, Rafa would still be having about the same number of slams. I really don't see him winning anymore HC slams then what he has up to this point, as Fed and Novak are formidable on the HCs. On grass, Rafa doesn't seem able to win anymore, not because of Novak or Murray or Fed, but because of some other players in the early rounds!

I think in 2009 Fed benefited from Rafa's injury. It's not like there's no one from the next generation to challenge Fed, we had Rafa back then, but he's injured. In 2010 when Rafa was back, Fed didn't win any more slams after his AO2010, right until Wimbledon 2012. There's no one from Fed's generation to challenge him in 2009. Right now, Novak has his own generation guys to challenge him - Rafa, Murray and even Stan who gives him problems each time they meet in a HC slam. The next generation guys? I see maybe Kei as a threat, and I don't see anyone beyond Kei from the next generation to be a threat at the slams.

I would like to add that if Rafa could continue to play like he did at Canada/Cincy in 2013, then I do feel he would have more successes vs Novak or Fed, it's just that Rafa hardly played that way on the HCs, which to me is regrettable. He's so good when he plays with aggression, on any surface. I really like the more aggressive Rafa, back during 2003-2005, when he was aggressive on the HCs, hitting his FH flatter and bigger, even painting the lines; maybe the slowing down of the courts had caused him to play more defensively after 2005?

SoCal, Rafa hit flatter and harder FHs in 04/05 and took a more aggressive court position at the baseline when playing on the HCs. It's after his successes on clay that he played his clay court game on the HCs, post 2005. It took him a long time to get back to more aggressive play on the HCS, from 2010 onwards.

Of course Novak would get more than 8 slams if he only had Rafa as his main opponent in 2004-2007 assuming a peak Novak vs a non peak Rafa. However, he won't have Fed's 11 slams in four years, as he's not as dominant as Fed on grass. Fed won seven HC slams in those four years; would Novak win all eight of them plus maybe two Wimbledon? Another interesting question is, how would peak Rafa fare during 2004-2007 in place of Fed? I think he would still win all his FOs, two Wimbledon, and maybe his three HC slams too? Or maybe more HC slams? It's anyone's guess.

Djokovic hasn't got a chasing pack of Nadal Murray and Djokovic like Federer did trying to push him out. Nishikori and Raonic are considered the next gen and yet are only a few years younger!

Djokovic may have had more slams if he didn't have the tough era he grew up in perhaps but he's going to have one hell of a time in the next few years to make up for it!

Belovedluckyboy wrote:1) SoCal, what are you talking about, when you said Rafa ran Fed damn close with a WTA serve in 2004-2007, when Rafa couldn't even made one single HC slam final?  A 22 yo Rafa vs a 27 yo Fed at AO 2009 final was a close affair, I don't see Rafa at age 24-26 any better than peak Fed of 2004-2007.  I would say at best they each win a fair share, ie about 50:50, Rafa winning at AO2009/uSO2010.  I think peak Fed could win USO2011 and AO2014 if they met in the finals, as I think Rafa wasn't playing that well in both.  AO2012 and USO2013, I think it's 50:50 between them.

2) Rafa didn't win many HC slams or Masters did he?  If Rafa could lose to Novak at HC Masters, he could also lose to Fed, especially at places like Cincy, Shanghai and Paris.
3) I did say that I would expect Rafa to win his two Wimbledon titles, as he did play very well to win them.  

So, my conclusion is that whether it's peak Fed or peak Novak that Rafa has/had to play during 2004-2007 or after, Rafa would still be having about the same number of slams.  I really don't see him winning anymore HC slams then what he has up to this point, as Fed and Novak are formidable on the HCs. On grass, Rafa doesn't seem able to win anymore, not because of Novak or Murray or Fed, but because of some other players in the early rounds!

1)Rafa never wins 50/50 of his matches with Fed. If you want to ground this deeply hypothetical argument in any fact you would have to acknowledge that 2010 and on Rafa was better on HCs. And that he always had the edge in their matchup against Fed. Therefore, why would he and Fed be 50/50 if they were of the same exact age. Even when Rafa was a teenager he had the edge in the matchup. His first win was at Miami against Fed.

2) Djokovic on the other hand has for most of his career had the better of Rafa on a hardcourt. If you think that Djokovic matchup is as challenging to Rafa as the Federer matchup then you are obviously ignoring the H2H. Peak Djokovic since 2011 is 11-6 against Nadal, 9-2 when you take clay out of the equation. When exactly did Federer ever on faster surfaces enjoy that kind of dominance of Nadal on faster surfaces? Even when considering that fed was at absolute peak and Nadal was still a teenager learning the ropes on the faster surfaces?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:SoCal, Rafa hit flatter and harder FHs in 04/05 and took a more aggressive court position at the baseline when playing on the HCs.  It's after his successes on clay that he played his clay court game on the HCs, post 2005.  It took him a long time to get back to more aggressive play on the HCS, from 2010 onwards.

Of course Novak would get more than 8 slams if he only had Rafa as his main opponent in 2004-2007 assuming a peak Novak vs a non peak Rafa.  However, he won't have Fed's 11 slams in four years, as he's not as dominant as Fed on grass.  Fed won seven HC slams in those four years; would Novak win all eight of them plus maybe two Wimbledon?  Another interesting question is, how would peak Rafa fare during 2004-2007 in place of Fed?  I think he would still win all his FOs, two Wimbledon, and maybe his three HC slams too? Or maybe more HC slams? It's anyone's guess.

Again you do acknowledge that Nadal 09 and on was better on Hardcourt than Nadal of 04-07, or are you just going to go down a complete fantasy lane drive? Other than that I already acknowledge that against Fed's 04-07 competition Djokovic would do better than 8 slams and not as well as Federer did he could not dominate that competition as fully as Federer did.

CAS wrote:Djokovic hasn't got a chasing pack of Nadal Murray and Djokovic like Federer did trying to push him out. Nishikori and Raonic are considered the next gen and yet are only a few years younger!

Djokovic may have had more slams if he didn't have the tough era he grew up in perhaps but he's going to have one hell of a time in the next few years to make up for it!

I agree, that remains to be seen. If Djokovic can maintain his health and level and we don't see the flowering of any youngsters and Nadal fails to injury or Murray just isn't good enough we could see Novak dominating a weak era at the tail end of his career.

SoCal, you don't seem to understand what I posted. Who said Rafa was as good on HC in 2004-2007?? As I said, he couldnt even made a HC slam final back then. However, that didn't mean that he wasn't aggressive on the HCs during 2003-2005, it's just that skill wise, he wasn't ready to win at the slams, but he did win two HC Masters in 2005 playing aggressive tennis. I don't see any contradiction there, neither is there any fantasy!

SoCal, you've forgottrn that Fed had a positive H2H on non clay surfaces vs Rafa, Fed was always beating Rafa on Indoor HC surfaces, and on grass right up till 2008. Rafa had never beaten Fed on indoor quick HCs, until 2013! Fed was 5-2 vs Rafa on non clay surfaces from 2004-2007. It's obvious that Fed was better than Rafa on quick courts. I would think that peak Rafa vs peak Fed, Fed would win more on quicker surfaces but overall Rafa would still have a positive H2H vs Fed because while Fed was almost hopeless vs Rafa on slow surfaces, Rafa still could beat Fed on quick surfaces, but Not as much as Fed would beat him IMO.

Novak vs Rafa on HC was 7-5 prior to 2011, and 0-2 on grass. Even though Novak was always better than Rafa on the HCs, Rafa still managed 5 wins in 12 matches from 2007-2010 and winning the important USO2010 final. From 2011, Novak was 7-2 on the HCs vs Rafa, not 9-2. He's 12-7 vs Rafa from 2011 onwards, 4-5 on clay, 1-0 on grass and 7-2 on the HCs. However, it's in 2011 that Novak won four of his seven wins, thereafter he's 3-2 on HCs vs Rafa. Unless Novak is to repeat what he did in 2011, I don't see him surging too far ahead of Rafa on the HCs. Rafa still won one of the three HC slam finals that they played from 2011 onwards.

And, why is Rafa 50:50 vs peak Fed on the HCs not possible? Rafa made 3 AO and 3 USO finals. I said earlier on that I think he would win AO2009/USO2010 even if it's peak Fed that he's playing against (I would also add now that Rafa would also beat a peak Novak too had they met, because Rafa was simply playing incredibly well then). In 2012 AO, a post prime Fed pushed Rafa to four sets, was actually playing better than Rafa for a good two sets, so I would expect a peak Fed would do better than that. Rafa didn't play well in the AO2014 final, so if it's Fed who met him there, Fed winning that one wasn't impossible! Rafa played better in 2013 than 2011 USO IMO, and don't tell me Fed the HC King at his peak couldn't even win one USO final vs Rafa?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:And, why is Rafa 50:50 vs peak Fed on the HCs not possible?  Rafa made 3 AO and 3 USO finals.  I said earlier on that I think he would win AO2009/USO2010 even if it's peak Fed that he's playing against (I would also add now that Rafa would also beat a peak Novak too had they met, because Rafa was simply playing incredibly well then). In 2012 AO, a post prime Fed pushed Rafa to four sets, was actually playing better than Rafa for a good two sets, so I would expect a peak Fed would do better than that. Rafa didn't play well in the AO2014 final, so if it's Fed who met him there, Fed winning that one wasn't impossible!  Rafa played better in 2013 than 2011 USO IMO, and don't tell me Fed the HC King at his peak couldn't even win one USO final vs Rafa?

I'm getting a bit confused with all this. Didn't Nadal beat Federer in straight sets in the AO 2014 semi.

Calder, we're assuming a peak Fed vs a peak Rafa, not the 33 yo Fed vs a Rafa in his prime. Of course we're assuming peak Fed and peak Rafa would meet in the final in 2014.

But you said Rafa didn't play well in the final. Therefore it couldn't be peak Rafa.

Very interesting discussion

I don't think facing Federer or Djokovic would make a big difference to Nadal in slams (the slam H2H is 9-2 vs Federer and 9-3 vs Djokovic); however I think in BO3 Djokovic can always Nadal much more than Federer.

BLB, do you agree with me that if Federer and Djokovic did swap birth dates, that Djokovic would have more Slams ? I think it would be very close, but Djokovic would perhaps have 1-2 more Slams.

CAS wrote:
Djokovic may have had more slams if he didn't have the tough era he grew up in perhaps but he's going to have one hell of a time in the next few years to make up for it!

This is a very astute point, and Socal can vouch for me that I predicted 2 years ago that there would be a far weaker period after Nadal turns 30 or so. Obviously we don't know the future yet, but I have a feeling my prediction will come good.

Calder, Rafa didnt play well in the 2014 AO final because he had his back injury, remember? Peak Rafa could get injured, like in 2008/2009/2012!

IMBL, in one of my earlier posts above, I did mentioned that Novak would have more slams had he peaked and swapped place with Fed in 04-2007, but I doubt he would have 11 slams in four years, as he unlike Fed, couldn't dominate on two surfaces. He would probably get 9-10 slams in those four years. I asked a question earlier, about Rafa. How do you think a peak Rafa would do during 2004-2007 assuming he swapped place with Fed? My guess: he would win his 4 FOs, 2 Wimbledon, and 3 or even more HC slams, but still would fall short of Fed's 11 slams.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:IMBL, in one of my earlier posts above, I did mentioned that Novak would have more slams had he peaked and swapped place with Fed in 04-2007, but I doubt he would have 11 slams in four years, as he unlike Fed, couldn't dominate on two surfaces.  He would probably get 9-10 slams in those four years.  I asked a question earlier, about Rafa.  How do you think a peak Rafa would do during 2004-2007 assuming he swapped place with Fed?  My guess:  he would win his 4 FOs, 2 Wimbledon, and 3 or even more HC slams, but still would fall short of Fed's 11 slams.

OK, and how many Slams do you think Federer would have got if he had to face the competition Djokovic did ?
More or less than 10 ?

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Calder, Rafa didnt play well in the 2014 AO final because he had his back injury, remember? Peak Rafa could get injured, like in 2008/2009/2012!

But you said that you were assuming peak Federer v peak Nadal. If someone is playing injured they can't be assumed to be playing at their peak.

IMBL, Novak has a prime Rafa but a post prime Fed during 2011-2014. If peak Fed had to face prime Novak and Rafa, he would definitely have it tougher than Novak did. I guess he might have two USOs, three Wimbledon and one AO during 2011-2014, very similar to Novak's.

If Fed had competition Djokovic did? fed would still dominate on grass. If Novak could win 7 HC slams, Fed too could win as many IMO, so my guess is Fed would win more than 10 slams.

Rafa was in his peak or nearing his peak in 2014, unless we agree that Rafa was already past it! Nobody could predict the injury during a slam final, so it didn't matter whether it's a peak Rafa or not. We're assuming how a peak Fed would do vs a peak Rafa right now, so we're not assuming Rafa playing in HC slam finals that he didn't even made it.

IMBL, I feel that Fed would win more slams than Novak because he was able to dominate on two surfaces, or dominate on one and share dominance on another, whilst Novak couldn't do that. Rafa is a bit unique because of his overwhelming dominance on clay, so even if he's not dominant on the other two surfaces, his slam count is still right up there as long as he could win a few slams on the other two surfaces.

I'm even more confused now. Can't  make any sense of the post at 16.53

It ok Calder, just forget about it, afterall, these discussions and assumptions are for fun. They're not going to happen in real life situations, no worry.

Ok cheers.

It Must Be Love wrote:Very interesting discussion

I don't think facing Federer or Djokovic would make a big difference to Nadal in slams (the slam H2H is 9-2 vs Federer and 9-3 vs Djokovic); however I think in BO3 Djokovic can always Nadal much more than Federer.

BLB, do you agree with me that if Federer and Djokovic did swap birth dates, that Djokovic would have more Slams ? I think it would be very close, but Djokovic would perhaps have 1-2 more Slams.

If Federer and Djoko swapped birth dates they would be completely different players. Although, just a tennis generation apart- what they were taught and the type of styles and conditions they focused on where quite different.  Djoko would prob have learned like Fed did a style to combat in the faster surface, more aggressive era. Djoko very well could have a one handed backhand.    Federer would have grown up with a different mindset and might be a two handed back hander.  Would Djokovic have been suited for that style, would Federer? we don't know because it's not reality, but I have a feeling with Federers talent and the fact that even in an era he wasn't taught for he has been massively successful, he would have still the Goat credentials he has now.

I think it kind of funny/hypocritical that you constantly fight when people bring up things like Nadal would not have done as well in past era's... Laver himself said Nadal would not have as much success in his era and you went on and on that with Nadals talent- he would have been able to be a completely different player and figured out a style to win in that era.  Yet you happily just plunk Federer into a different era without any thought that Federer would be a different player and have a different style that suited the times.  and same with Djokovic.

TRuffin wrote:

If Federer and Djoko swapped birth dates they would be completely different players.

Yes, I should have added on the condition they still went on to become the tennis players they were.
If Djokovic had been born five years earlier, he may not have become a tennis player at all, his situation was a very tough one when he was born and in many ways he was fortunate to even have a chance to play.

TRuffin wrote:
Yet you happily just plunk Federer into a different era without any thought that Federer would be a different player and have a different style that suited the times.  and same with Djokovic.

Indeed, but the main reason why I feel there would be a big change in Slams won is not the racket technology or conditions- but simply the competition Djokovic faced to win his Slams I feel was considerably harder. As I showed he had to beat Federer or Nadal to win 6/8 Slams. Nadal had to beat Federer/Djokovic/both for 12 out of 14 Slams. Irrelevant of the conditions, I think Djokovic would have done better if he had faced Federer's level of competition throughout his career.

It Must Be Love wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

If Federer and Djoko swapped birth dates they would be completely different players.

Yes, I should have added on the condition they still went on to become the tennis players they were.
If Djokovic had been born five years earlier, he may not have become a tennis player at all, his situation was a very tough one when he was born and in many ways he was fortunate to even have a chance to play.

TRuffin wrote:
Yet you happily just plunk Federer into a different era without any thought that Federer would be a different player and have a different style that suited the times.  and same with Djokovic.

Indeed, but the main reason why I feel there would be a big change in Slams won is not the racket technology or conditions- but simply the competition Djokovic faced to win his Slams I feel was considerably harder. As I showed he had to beat Federer or Nadal to win 6/8 Slams. Nadal had to beat Federer/Djokovic/both for 12 out of 14 Slams. Irrelevant of the conditions, I think Djokovic would have done better if he had faced Federer's level of competition throughout his career.

You judge competition by names only? What if Nadal is destroyed in the semis by Del Potro in US Open and Federer (had) beaten Del Potro? In your eyes, that's a weaker competition because he didnt' face the name Nadal- yet Del Potro was the better player in the tournament. Federer beats Soderling in the French who blew Nadal off the court-- so now Federer's title doesn't mean as much? that's not how tennis or sport works. Is Nadals Wimbledon title over Berdych weighed less because he beat someone who has been historically weak against him and is a middle of the pack top 10' his career? No, because Berdych blew Federer off the court in that same tourney. Whoever you are facing in the final is one of the best two players in the field-- whether Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, or Murray are there or not. Federer has won 13 Majors against the very same field Nadal has won his against. An emerging in prime Federer wouldn't have been able to win 4 more against similar competition? of course he could/would.

It's certainly not based on names only, it is our subjective judgements, but all time greats tend to be harder to beat...
Berdych is one of Nadal's easier Slam final opponents.