If Roger Federer doesn't existed, would Rafael Nadal won two consecutive Wimbledon already or he would lost in

Question

the final to someone else?

Answer 1

Rafael Nadal would have won the Wimbledon and would obviously been the best player.

Answer 2

If Federer didn't exist then somethings would have been different. Djokovic and Rafa would probably meet in the finals. So, I'd say they'd win 1 each or may be Rafa would take them both.

Jess S, how can you say Rafa would own all the GS when he's NEVER made it to the finals of the aussie or US Open? He's never been beaten by federer there. He lost to someone else in each of those 2 opens.

Answer 3

yes

Answer 4

rafa would have won at least one wimbledon, as last year he lost only to federer in he final. he would have won more slams, for sure and been the no1. had federer not existed, nadal would have been at the top for quite sometime. on second thoughts, i feel nadal has become a better player due to  such high level of competition from federer. and vice-versa. one cant deny the effect of competition on one's performance, you know.

Answer 5

Rafael Nadal would obviously be the best player right now if it wasn't for Roger in his way. Rafa would own all the grandslams.

Answer 6

if roger federer doesn't existed....tennis game will be boring...i will never watch tennis again

Answer 7

If you believe in parallel dimensions, then Federer has already defeated Nadal in the French, and, for your other, similar, question, Nadal has defeated Federer at the AELTC.

Of course, in some other parallel dimension, you actually would have phrased the question in a grammatically correct manner!  ;)