lol that’s cold

roddick played really well in that final tho, ur point is correct but most of the times it'll work out.

Of course it's straightforward, doesn't make it non interesting nevertheless

I see your point and agree to some extent. Del Potro 2017 US Open and 2018 Wimbledon comes to mind, he would have beaten Anderson in the final imo. Wawrinka 2013 US Open as well, people forget his 5-set SF with djokovic.

Yeah, and Verdasco probably beats Roddick at 2009 AO, Dimitrov probably beats Wawrinka at 2014 AO, Delpo beats Anderson in both the 2017 US Open and 2018 Wimbledon. These may seem like nitpicks but they’re pretty important in this context. Dimitrov and Verdasco become slam winners, Delpo shoots up to 5 slams, Roddick moves down to 4.

Yes also as they pick up a slam thatwould affect their pints which could give.them.more on points

@@madezio2 2019-20 Thiem was definitely better than 2014-16 Stan imo. Thiem was just more consistent. Would be a great ballbashing match that I’d love to watch though. Murray was definitely better than Medvedev, although we’ll see if Medvedev can pass him eventually. Delpo at his absolute peak was better than Tsitsipas, but Tsitsipas will probably have a better career because of Delpo’s injuries.

1) Murray would win mostly. Too crafty with the net play, forehands and lobs. Although I think Meddy would attack his 2nd serve. Close 4 sets. 2) Wawrinka at grand Slams although I could see them with a close H2H. When Stan was on, no one could match even prime Djokovic. 3) On clay, Tsitsipas would have an advantage. On hard court, I would favour Delpo.

@@quest9133 I have not seen Wawrinka play much, but it seems to me that he and Thiem match up well against Djokovic (powerful one-handed backhands), so prime Djokovic may be seen as the ultimate challenge for most, but I think it may be different for Stan. I think Nadal would be a greater challenge.

First match would be extremely physical. Second match I genuinely can't call, but I favour Wawrinka for his ability to win big matches. Third match is surface dependent, have to go Tsitsipas on clay and DelPo on anything faster.

Fit Delpo will eat Tsitsipas alive, It's not even a contest.

I agree. His semi final against Nadal was epic. Hit almost 100 winners.

@@quest9133 Yeah, I'm really surprised to see them give that slam to Roddick

@@saikat93ify Roddick was probably the higher ranked player coming into the tournament and Verdasco was on the rise. But Verdasco would have beaten him in the final easily during that tournament.

No

Very good point. Del Potro losing to Djokovic at Wimbledon 2013 is a good example, guy was incredible that tournament and could have gone on to beat Murray that final.

@@marcob2250 id even think medvedev at ao 2019 who lost a tight 4 setter to novak, would be a better candidate than tsitsipas. look at their hc h2h

@@MrPranu2000 100% could even say Wawrinka 2013 losing to Djokovic 4R could have gone onto beat Murray in the final. So I think not taking form into consideration is a flaw. But this is all hypothetical and all the draws and rankings would have been different if big 3 didn't exist, but what is clear is that all these players would have done better without the 3 🐐🐐🐐

@@marcob2250 yes I was thinking about the wawrinka one as well. that was one of the highest quality tennis matches ive ever seen against novak

@@MrPranu2000 One of my favourite matches of all time. Quality and level from start to finish was just insane. I still remember after watching that match even though Wawrinka lost I thought, Wawrinka is born and he will win at least 1 slam, glad he surpassed my expectations.

Andy did well when he was the favourite

Murray was favourite at USO 16, AO 17 where he couldn’t even make QFs. Murray often let’s emotions get the better of him and was always likely to get upset at any slam even if he was the favourite. I always thought of Murray as an unstable form of Djokovic.

@@rishabhaniket1952 at the US Open in 2016 Murray was knackered after a long tough summer. And in Australia 2017, he had the onset of shingles and an ongoing n niggly injury. He won plenty when he was a favourite, but in general he definitely did better as the hunter rather than the hunted

​@@rishabhaniket1952agree, delpo and wawrinka had a better mental edge than murray, specially delpo who at young age did what murray needed couple ofnyears more to do, winning a slam against one of the big3, delpo did on his first final at 19yrs old, he obviously has the better mentality, murray was just more consistent cause didn't have any serious injury until 2016, delpo started his injury nigjtmare at 20yrs

​@@diegosotomiranda4107To be honest, if Murray wasn't bullyied so badly by big 3 early on, he would most likely never get that mental block.

and how you know it's a hypothetical

Exactly. Delpo lost a few quarters to Roger and Rafa I think. If he is moved to semis in those cases, he would probably beat the remaining players!

Maybe, but Agassi would beat him at US Open 2004

@@utkarshdeshmukh6414 Agreed bro

Man I'm quite interested by this too, mind sharing more info on what you're upto? I'm a data science student

@@parthshrivastava2548 From 2003-2007 I've just gone through the draws and tried to determine what perhaps would matter most to begin with, before I do it all properly. I'll probabaly make a video on it eventually. This is the criteria I've come up with so far - seeds / rankings - highest non big 3 seed - last standing non big 3 player - winning h2h on surface - most recent meetings - surface win % - history at tournament - performance at lead up events - season performance (win %, surface %, Vs top 10 etc…) Next would be determining what's the most important/impactful stat

@@FootFaultTennis I've got a few ideas too (for features/criteria), we could maybe collaborate if you're up for it!

Big 4? You mean big 3 +1 and then the rest of the field

There’s no Big 4. Never been, never will

@@semgonzales5430 There was a big 4 though 😏😏.

Well, Murray Ferrer thing is a bit more complex. In slams Ferrer beat Murray only once and at RG. Their slam h2h is 4:1. You can't assume slam results by overall h2h. After all, if that was the case, Murray should have beaten Federer in most of their slam meeting as he was leading their h2h from 2008 till 2014

@@HBK492 Looking at this more closely, I think the major results that change are the 2014 French Open (giving it to Ferrer because he is 1-0 against Murray at the French Open) and maybe one of the hard-court majors. You made a great point that H2H alone is not enough to determine fake slam winners but maybe a breakdown of H2H based on the surface could be a better substitute. For example, Ferrer beat Murray a bunch of times on clay courts so I would say Ferrer is the overall better player on clay than Murray. But Murray has a dominating record over Ferrer on hard courts so Murray gets an edge with hard court majors. But tennis is a matchup sport and choosing to not account for matchups is I think ignorant with a list like this, especially considering that a guy like Del Potro could easily beat average tour-level guys like RBA and Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon 2019 and US Open 2017 respectively.

@@robinreviews5077 Another point to look at is how the absence of the big 3 would affect slams that weren't even won by them. On paper it sounds ridiculus, but on the other hand, if Federer didn't beat Sampras at wimbledon in 2001,who knows if Ivanisevic would actually won. Zverev isn't on the list here, but to be honest, he would have a real shot against Medvedev in a final.

​@@HBK492 I think beating a big 3 isn't just like any other matchup analogy out there. If you beat a big 3 member then you played at a level good enough to beat anyone on that given day despite the circumstances. But if you remove big 3 from the equation, yes matchups do matter. With the Medvedev example in 2021, I would say that Medvedev would have beaten Zverev in that hypothetical final because Medvedev played at a level good enough to beat Djokovic, who is a big 3 player. On the other hand, I still stand by that Del Potro would have beaten RBA in 2019 Wimbledon had they played cuz neither of them beat a big 3 player nor are they in the big 3 themselves so the matchup element matters in this case. If you think I am hyping up the big 3 players too much, just look at how many grand slams they won in the last 20 years. It's actually comical.

I would say delpo without injuries would top murray, and Even with delpo injuries they had a really interesting Match up, murray has better movement and little more variations (delpo was a really complete player on his own he was not just a hard hitter) and he has a better mental edge than Murray

Undoubtedly, except clay season he is playing at his best surface all year round . Nadal is the one who has to constantly adapt and change his game style all year round . Unfortunately people don't see this . But it is what it is .

@@ravirathee6801 Yes, but most of the tour has HC as their best surface and that has a lot to do with HC being the main surface on tour. If you had 2 grass slams than arguably most of the tour would have grass as their best surface. The competition is simply much stronger on HC than clay right now and has been that way for quite a while. Nadal had every opportunity while growing up to adapt his game to the most used surface on the tour and he didn't. I suspect it was planned to have him focus on clay because his team likely understood that the competition wasn't quite as stiff on that surface.

@@cobra7282 I don't agree , the. Competition on clay is equally stronger ,, Nadal didn't focus on his game to play on clay , even on clay he plays like other surfaces, he is not the typical clay courter , he is the most adaptable player on tour , however the competition on grass is very very weak , . It is unquestionable that Djokovic has humongous advantage because of the surfaces,

@@ravirathee6801 Than what is his excuse to not have a game that works better for HC and grass? And your wrong that clay competition is just as strong as HC. Virtually every player on tour is good on HC and a lot of them are not good on clay. Also Djokovic has been by far the 2nd best player on clay over the past 13 years or so and was simply unlucky to play at the same time as the clay GOAT. If anything Djokovic is the best at adapting his game as he has 12 HC slams, 7 Wimbledons and 2 RG titles in spite of routinely having to play Nadal there. RG is probably Djokovic's worst slam by the numbers and he is easily better there than Nadal's worst slam. Also if Nadal is just so versatile and the competition is so weak on grass than why has Nadal lost early at Wimbledon so many times?

@@cobra7282 first of all Nadal has 6 majors and one Olympic gold medal on hard courts, to think that his game doesn't work on hard courts can be your opinion . And could have easily been 8-9 . And as far as grass is concerned, in his peak he made 5 Wimbledon finals in a row , it's a shame he had to miss 2009 due to injury . He himself has said many times that he shouldn't have played Wimbledon in 2012 and 2013 , and losing to brown and Nick at your worst slam is far better than losing to Chung and istomin at your lair . And Nadal has made 3 consecutive semifinals at Wimbledon, and he made semifinals with a 7 mm abdominal tear , so again if you think his game doesn't work on grass as well Can be your opinion , he is exhausted after a long clay season has also contributed to his debacle at Wimbledon. And Nadal is the one who has to adjust his game due to injuries time and time again . And Nadal has much more non clay success than Federer and Djokovic on clay . And to Nadal and Djokovic it doesn't matter competition is tough or weak on their strongest surface. To win biggest titles each of them has to go through the strongest possible players .

I'm sure he knows this. Even minus his injuries he would've achieved five or six slams

Nah, delpo without injuries would be the dominant force, not murray

Cilic would be a 30 + Slam winner

Cilic would win Wimbledon 2014 Cilic would be the Greatest tennis player ever

I think this accounts for that

Roddick would never be a dominating forcé at any era, sorry but he was just good in US tournaments and Wimbledon for a time, everything else he was totally beatable, his tennis was límited to be a dominant force

I also think delpo wins Wimbledon 2018 in this scenario.

And those matches were amazing Iam a Rafa fan but Iam a fan of Delpo ever since I have started watching Tennis

Considering Soderlings level in FO 2009 final, Delpo could win this one too

Daydenko was anything but average. He leads the H2H against Nadal

Murray had a major injury in the arm a hip replacement

@@ronin7354 all of them had major or minor surgeries in their carreers. Sure - the hip replacement is likely the most severe - but even then you would expect him to shorten points, play more aggressive, change anything up, but he doesnt

@@tvtotalforever Murray was at his best when playing aggressive tennis around the period 2012-2013 .

@@harryfalm3118 i liked that murray a lot as well. 2016 Murray was at his countering and defending best though

@@tvtotalforever Murray in 2016 really disappointed me in the Australian open final by going down to djokovic that tamely

Murray is a top 12 player of all time. He just faced the 3 greatest

Terrible second serve, mediocre forehand are the reason. Probably second best returner if all time though.

While Federer is clearly below Nadal and Djokovic in terms of maintaining his peak, using the argument of "weak era" to discredit his achievement is not appropriate. You should know that while a player may not have consistency, his peak is not necessary lower than those with high consistency. Many players cannot perform well every year but they can peak in certain Slams in a years. There is no guarantee that Nadal and Djokovic would win more Slams in the 2000s if they started the same year as Federer. An "if" is still an "if". In reality, a Slam is a Slam, Federer cannot win any more Slams and will have fewer Slams than the other two but it doesn't mean that his 20 Slams have less value than those achieved by Nadal and Djokovic. That's a fact.

Very true Move3Spaces. Competition during 2008 - 2016 is the strongest. Weakest from 2017 - 2019. Comparable to 2000s infact. And stabilized to a better era since 2019 onwards since thiem and meddy bear hit their purple patches. Although zverev is better than these all in non majors, he is a non factor in majors though.

@@guruk competition in 2015-2016 was joke with Rafa injured 😂😂. Best era was 2007-2014

Roddick wouldnt win against Berdych, delpo, wawrinka, Tsonga, etc, he just had his serve and fh, everything else was subpar compared to the ones mentioned, he sucked at the net too

Haha it's just for fun and to make us think! Glad I help you with the language

So based on this, Murray would then be considered the GOAT without a doubt...

I think you could argue for Roddick playing for longer and maybe getting more than six, but I don't think Sampras cut his career short because of Federer, he might have won 2001 Wimbledon, but that is probably it.

Pete retired 2002, so it makes no difference

@@benjaminpedersen9548 A fair point. I think he would have won 2001 Wimbers, and that confidence gets him the 2001 US Open. Knowing he can still win slams, I think he toughs out 2002 Wimbers and glides to 2002 USO as well, so that's 4 more majors right there. A lot of the reason Pete retired was all the crap he, and more importantly, his wife was getting from the press because he wasn't winning. If he wins 2001 Wimbledon, the chatter is quieter, and he might have the desire to keep going a couple more years.

Injuries permitting of course

Actually I don't think he would, as Gil explained in the video. But his feat at the US was amazing, and it's great he got that Slam, beating BOTH Nadal and Federer on the way.

I fundamentally disagree with the methodology of this simulation. Its a fun thought exercise, for sure though

What wrong with You?

What is wrong with you? Parallel universe? If you have nothing sey be 😶😔

Yeah and injured in his prime. People forget that. I think he would have a few more slams if he didn’t get injured in 2017

@Coefficient of restitution agreed, novak's haul of major's would be much less if both murray and nadal were blessed with the lack of injury novak has enjoyed

Yeah, I can't imagine a world without them. Also need to remark how lucky we are to have them, watch them and share the same era with them. They are already history of tennis.

@@pnunezaguila Now, they're saying that it's the BIG 1. The Alcaraz.

I get it but murray was in over a dozen finals and only lost to big 3 in them. Wawrinka only made it to a about 5 slam finals