If Roger Didnt Exist?

[- PC -]

Who would have won his Grand Slams?


I say Lleyton for 3 of them

 

[DB10]

Roddick would have won a lot of them, possibly Nalbandian might have picked one up.

The "what if?" scenario is a bit daft though.

 

[nick_savo]

Weel obvistly the poeple he played against would of won.

 

[- PC -]

Weel obvistly the poeple he played against would of won.

What about those he beat? Especially at SF level

 

[footy_rulz]

Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Nadal would all win their fair share. Nadal would be the dominant one though.

 

[Redline]

I think it would have been evenly shaired with perhaps Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt winning the majority of them. We might have seen a few more outsiders win as well. Hard to say.

 

[Londoner86]

I'm sure that Wayne Arthurs would have at least 2 or 3 Majors.


LH86

 

[likka]

Whoever lost to him in the finals.

 

[red+black]

I doubt Hewitt would have 5 majors. He's won just the one tournament in 2 years. His life at the top was over a long time ago.

 

[legitimatic]

Whoever lost to him in the finals.

What about the players he beat in order to reach the finals?

 

[crowsarethebest]

If Federer didn't exist Hewitt would've pick up a few... Roddick a few.. Nadal would probably sweep a few... Gonzo this year. Um... THe field would be a lot more even... Federer is just so dominant its not funny. If he wins the French Open.. we can almost say he is one of the greatest all time. He mgiht even be one of the greatest all time already.

 

[CharlieG]

Lleyton's lost to Federer in five of his ten winning Grand Slams. Once in a final, twice in a semi, once in the quarters and once in the fourth round. So theoretically without the Fed he might have won seven Slams. Even allowing for the likelihood that he would have lost later matches a couple of times, it's still fair to say that he'd have one another one or two at least.

 

[G.O.B]

A sidetrack question if I may.

I know that this would only apply (if at all) to his first couple of wins.

Has Federer ever been an underdog in any of his 10 victories at a Slam event? His 1st maybe?

ATM, he is a short priced favourite before a ball is even hit but at what point did that start occuring and have any of his early victories been viewed as an upset?

 

[Funkalicous]

A sidetrack question if I may.

I know that this would only apply (if at all) to his first couple of wins.

Has Federer ever been an underdog in any of his 10 victories at a Slam event? His 1st maybe?

Against Philippousis? No way. Besides, he demolished Roddick in the semis that year.

As for the original question.

2003 Wimbledon - Philippousis. Played a better match against Fed than Roddick did.

2004 Australian Open - Safin. Was unstoppable. He beat Agassi, Roddick to name a few.

2004 Wimbledon - Roddick. Made it to the final with ease. Even took the first set against Federer.

2004 US Open - Hewitt. Made it to the final without losing a set.

2005 Wimbledon - Hewitt. Had the wood over Roddick at this stage. No one else really threatened to win after them.

2005 US Open - Agassi. Incredible run. Was an underdog in a lot of matches, but came through.

2006 Australian Open - Haas. He pushed Federer to a fifth set, and he wouldn't have been too troubled by Baghdatis IMO.

2006 Wimbledon - Nadal. Kendrich should've finished him in the first round, but he choked. Rafa only got better from there.

2006 US Open - Roddick. - Beat Hewitt who looked threatening. Nadal blew his match, and Safin was still on the comeback trail.

2007 Australian Open - Gonzalez. - You couldn't seriously deny him, could ya?

So the "Been screwed by Fed" tally looks like this:
Hewitt - 2
Roddick - 2
Safin - 1
Agassi - 1
Nadal - 1
Haas - 1
Philippousis - 1
Gonzalez - 1

 

[G.O.B]

Against Philippousis? No way. Besides, he demolished Roddick in the semis that year.
So the "Been screwed by Fed" tally looks like this:
Hewitt - 2
Roddick - 2
Safin - 1
Agassi - 1
Nadal - 1
Haas - 1
Philippousis - 1
Gonzalez - 1

Firstly, thank you for your detailed response.
It does seem that Federer has never won a tournament that he didn't deserve to. (for want of a better phrase)
Not that my question was loaded in any way as I'm not much of a tennis fan. I certainly had no idea that Federer beat the Poo for his 1st major crown.
The question was asked more to get a feel whether his ascent to the top was gradual where he may have got "lucky" with 1 or 2 wins before becoming the dominant player, or if he hit the ground running,so to speak, and has been unstoppable since.