http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1065537

This has gone up on the BBC board and as i'm pretty sure it's only a matter of time before i all goes a bit troll-like, i thought i'dsee what people here think.

In terms of points, is Rafa right - as in, would the number of points he has normally get him to number 1?

And in other terms, do you think he's right (although let's try not to get too bogged down in federer being the greatest player in history) Would Rafa really be number 1 if federer wasn't there? I'm wondering that if Fed wasn't around, that would leave the other slams for the taking and would Rafa have taken those? Would he have taken any of the hard court tournaments that Fed won? I'm just wondering if people think that if Federer wasn't around whether Nadal would actually be number 1, or whether the top 10 would be a lot closer???

Well without Fed he would be number one in this era for sure, but it's difficult to say in other eras; as the point system changes. TO be honest it was a slightly off the cuff remark, so I wouldn't read too much into it, he'd have probably been number one for a while in the 90's but Pete would've still been number one most of the time and I expect he would've been number two to the ultra consistent Lendl and work horse Connors when they held the top ranking also :)

Are you shure Nadal would be no.1 in this era SW19? I'm not
He'd be king of clay for sure, but I reckon somebody else would emerge on the hard courts and grass. Other players have shown that you can hit through Nadal

Well he wouldn't be number one the same way Fed is - dominant everywhere.

But going by points Id say he'd have racked up a good few weeks at number one by now, I know people like Blake and ARod would've picked up a lot of Fed's points but still not enough to overtake Rafa, at the moment anyway.

I'd say that he would be fighting Roddick for it,and the field would be closer.Federer's points would probably go to Roddick in the main,with the rest spread out to Lubo,Nalby,and Blake on the fast surfaces.
I think Federer does Nadal a lot of favours in that regard,as we have seen from his relatively poor hardcourt run.
Kind of I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

Without Federer, Roddick would probably have won 4 slams by now.

Ye I think Roddick will be challenging for the YE#2 next year so without Federer it's likely he would be a strong candidate for number one.

Possibly over Nadal, but Nadal would certainly be in the mix.

Hi serena,I think he will get a slow start,because he never seems to play well in those early european events,and his clay record outside of the green clay at Houston is dreadful.

Come Wimbledon&queens he will start to make inroads into his lead,but with Roddick's record not particulary great in the first few months he could pick up points just by winning an extra round or two.

That's probably going to be the most interesting bit of next season for me.

hi Brakkus, I agree :)

I think Roddick could do well at the AO as well though...I hope. So he will hopefully pick some points up there, and perhaps Miami/Indian Wells, but as you rightly say it's not until Queens that Roddick's season really gets going. It will be interesting to see how much he can catch up with the top 3 come the grass court season.

I think Nadal will be challenged at #2, but I doubt it will be Roddick. It's difficult to see where his game can go from where it is. I call Nadal one-dimensional, but Roddick is even worse in that regard! just look at his volleys, or his erratic backhand!

To be honest I feel that the one man who could really push Rafa for the #2 spot is Nalbandian, if he can maintain his A game throughout a year he is one hell of a tough man to beat, and he is competetive on any surface too

While you make a valid point,Nalbandian does have trouble closing out tournaments,we can blame Roger for some of that.

You know though that while Roddick doesn't have the raquet skills of Nalbandian,he can do the job that needs to be done when he gets his opportunities.Yes he has a poor record to Fed,but then only Nadal can boast of a good record there.

Roddick convinces me more,than Nalbandian when it comes to winning a tournament.

Roddick's game maybe 1D, but it's very effective.

Yes but what i'm saying is that, if Nalby could banish his demons with being inconsistent et al, he would be a better bet than anyone if fed wasn't about.

He certainly saw off Roddick easily at the YEC, and who can forget how he played against Fed last year in them!