PDA

View Full Version : If all current players were at the peak of their powers


joeri888
03-14-2012, 06:47 AM
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Nalbandian
6. Roddick
7. Murray
8. Davydenko
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 07:11 AM
Good list:

Here's mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Del Potro
6. Nalbandian
7. Roddick
8. Murray
9. Tsonga
10. Davydenko

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 07:16 AM
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Del Potro
5. Hewitt
6. Muzz
7. Nalbandian
8. A Rod
9. Denkp
10. Tsonga or Birdclown but I tend to Jo

The order could change from the second spot to the 10th.
Fed is obviously at #1.
I don't see any other players but these in the Top10.

Dark Victory
03-14-2012, 07:30 AM
For sure, it'd be a strong list.

TBH, guys like Fish, Ferrer and Wawrinka just don't really strike me as Top 10 material players.

Andres
03-14-2012, 07:47 AM
Let's see

2004 Federer
2010 Nadal
2012 Djokovic
2007 Nalbandian
2011-Current? Murray
2001-2002 Hewitt
2009 Del Potro
2003-2004 Roddick
2007 Davydenko
2003 Ferrero.

So my ranking would be something like:

1. Federer (2004)
2. Nadal (2008 / 2010)
3. Djokovic (2011)
4/5. Hewitt (2001-2002)
5/4. Nalbandian (2007)
6. Roddick (2003-2004)
7. Del Potro(2009)
8. Murray (Current)
9. Ferrero (2003)
10. Davydenko (2007)

Honorable mention to Ljubicic (2006)

Mainad
03-14-2012, 07:56 AM
If they were all playing at their absolute peak and were all doing so consistently, day in and day out, I think:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
5. Del Potro
6. Nalbandian
7. Roddick
8. Hewitt
9. Tsonga
10. Davydenko

Still see the current top 4 there although I put Nadal as no.1 because he was still leading the H2H with Federer even in the latter's peak years (2004-7). Djokovic is down to no.3 because I still think he would be edged even now by peak Nadal and peak Federer. I'm guessing Murray stays at no.4 because he was beating the likes of Del Potro when the latter was at his peak (2009) and was beating Hewitt and Roddick when they were both not too far from their peak years (2006 or so).

Just my twopennyworth.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 07:58 AM
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.

brettsticker86
03-14-2012, 08:03 AM
1-nadal
2-federer
3-djokovic
4-roddick
5-del potro
6-murray
7-hewitt
9-tsonga
10-this one i couldn't decide between soderling or berdych...i think they both have loads of talent, just not together mentally.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 08:10 AM
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.

You can't say that dude.
I say the H2H was skewed by HC in favor of Fed.
How bout that?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:11 AM
#1 ranking means you have to be better than the whole field.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:12 AM
You can't say that dude.
I say the H2H was skewed by HC in favor of Fed.
How bout that?

Well let's compromise and say that they meet 10 times. 5 times on indoor hard and 5 times on clay. What would you predict the H2H will be then?

Wilander Fan
03-14-2012, 08:15 AM
2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal's IMO. He made the finals of just about everything but just kept running into Novak. If not for Novak, Nadal probably has a 75% shot at the GS. Nadal almost definitely beats Tsonga at WB and Fed at AO...the only question would have been Fed at USO. Nadal probably also has a clay court sweep and 2 more HC1000s. In short, Nadal would have had the greatest single season ever.

For that reason, you dont have to speculate about prime Novak and prime Nadal. Novak is clearly better at his peak on all surfaces.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:16 AM
2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal's IMO. He made the finals of just about everything but just kept running into Novak. If not for Novak, Nadal probably has a 75% shot at the GS. Nadal almost definitely beats Tsonga at WB and Fed at AO...the only question would have been Fed at USO. Nadal probably also has a clay court sweep and 2 more HC1000s. In short, Nadal would have had the greatest single season ever.

For that reason, you dont have to speculate about prime Novak and prime Nadal. Novak is clearly better at his peak on all surfaces.

Quoted for truth.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 08:18 AM
Well let's compromise and say that they meet 10 times. 5 times on indoor hard and 5 times on clay. What would you predict the H2H will be then?

Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.

I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:22 AM
Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.

I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.

Well maybe Fed would have a better chance of beating Fed on indoor, notwithstanding the actual data showing instances of Fed beating Nadal on clay, but no instances of Nadal beating Fed on indoor HC.

But let's not even consider that. In any case you agree that the H2H would be 5-5 if their meetings were more evenly distributed on their best surfaces. Which was not the case in 2004-2007. Hence the skew.

Mainad
03-14-2012, 08:23 AM
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.

It's difficult to compare. In 2004-7, Fed's peak years, he was dominant over Nadal on 2 of the 3 surfaces. But in Nadal's peak years which were a bit later, 2007-10 or thereabouts, he gets better on HC and grass and starts to dominate on those surfaces as well. So peak Nadal (2007-10) would probably still have the upper hand over peak Federer (2004-7) IMO.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:25 AM
It's difficult to compare. In 2004-7, Fed's peak years, he was dominant over Nadal on 2 of the 3 surfaces. But in Nadal's peak years which were a bit later, 2007-10 or thereabouts, he gets better on HC and grass and starts to dominate on those surfaces as well. So peak Nadal (2007-10) would still have the upper hand over peak Federer (2007-7) IMO.

Well really it comes down to comparing these two:

pre prime Nadal to peak Fed
post prime Fed to peak Nadal.

The data indicate that preprime Nadal was closer to his peak in terms of stats than postprime Fed is to his peak stats. So really you cannot mix the two.

In any case, the point of this thread is ranking, where one must dominate the entire field, not just one player. On that basis alone, it seems to me Fed far exceeds Nadal. Just compare their peak year losses to the field.

monfed
03-14-2012, 08:25 AM
Gosh this is too tough to call but if I really had to stick my neck out I'd put Fed at the top of the pile. Not sure about the rest.

Andres
03-14-2012, 08:33 AM
#1 ranking means you have to be better than the whole field.
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.

Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:36 AM
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.

Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.

Well he could reach the semis for all clay events, does that equate to a loss of 3000 points? Even so, wouldn't winning the other 3 slams all of those years still give him the #1 ranking?

monfed
03-14-2012, 08:38 AM
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.

Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.

Actually, Fed could've just tanked after reaching the semis of all clay events, he'd still make enough points to keep his number 1 ranking provided he dominated the other events so its not a logical fallacy.

Mainad
03-14-2012, 08:41 AM
Well really it comes down to comparing these two:

pre prime Nadal to peak Fed
post prime Fed to peak Nadal.

The data indicate that preprime Nadal was closer to his peak in terms of stats than postprime Fed is to his peak stats. So really you cannot mix the two.

As I understand it, the OP is asking us to compare them as if both were still playing at their respective peaks (whenever that happened to be). Its all very hypothetical and guessy of course, but IMO peak Nadal would edge peak Federer on ALL surfaces.


In any case, the point of this thread is ranking, where one must dominate the entire field, not just one player. On that basis alone, it seems to me Fed far exceeds Nadal. Just compare their peak year losses to the field.

Fair point. I don't have the stats to hand to compare. Did Nadal lose to more players than Federer did in their peak years? I still think that the peak no.1 should be able to dominate the peak no.2 though. It looks a bit odd to me if he can't. But that's just my take.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 08:46 AM
Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.

I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.

How so? Nadal has never come close to beating Federer on indoor hard. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 08:48 AM
Well maybe Fed would have a better chance of beating Fed on indoor, notwithstanding the actual data do show instance of Fed beating Nadal on clay, but no instance of Nadal beating Fed on indoor HC.

But let's not even consider that. In any case you agree that the H2H would be 5-5 if their meetings were more evenly distributed on their best surfaces. Which was not the case in 2004-2007. Hence the skew.

The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.

As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 08:49 AM
How so? Nadal has never come close to beating Federer on indoor hard. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay.

Read above post.

How many times did they play on CC and how many times did they play on IHC??

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-14-2012, 08:49 AM
Best year's play?
1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Nadal
4 Hewitt
5 Roddick
6 Davydenko
7 Murray
8 Nalbandian
9 del Potro
10 Soderling

If they are all constantly in god mode
1 Federer
2 Davydenko
3 Nalbandian
4 Murray
5 Wawrinka
6 Tipsarevic
7 Djokovic
8 Nadal
9 Soderling
10 Tsonga

TMF
03-14-2012, 08:49 AM
As I understand it, the OP is asking us to compare them as if both were still playing at their respective peaks (whenever that happened to be). Its all very hypothetical and guessy of course, but IMO peak Nadal would edge peak Federer on ALL surfaces.



Hell no. Only on clay and that's include his immense matchup advantage.

Oh, you totally forgot he's winless against Fed on indoor, which is why Fed has 6 WTF to Nadal 0 !

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:52 AM
The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.

As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.

Fair enough. But in his peak you could say Fed's best surface was grass, not HC. What was the distributions of their meetings on grass vs clay during those years?

FlashFlare11
03-14-2012, 08:53 AM
Best year's play?
1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Nadal
4 Hewitt
5 Roddick
6 Davydenko
7 Murray
8 Nalbandian
9 del Potro
10 Soderling

If they are all constantly in god mode
1 Federer
2 Davydenko
3 Nalbandian
4 Murray
5 Wawrinka
6 Tipsarevic
7 Djokovic
8 Nadal
9 Soderling
10 Tsonga
I don't know if Wawrinka should be listed so highly in your "God mode" list, but the rest of them can beat anyone on tour when they get hot!

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 08:55 AM
Fair point. I don't have the stats to hand to compare. Did Nadal lose to more players than Federer did in their peak years? I still think that the peak no.1 should be able to dominate the peak no.2 though. It looks a bit odd to me if he can't. But that's just my take.

Well as far as I remember there is not one year that Nadal has less than double digit losses. Whereas Federer in his best years had 6, 4 and 5 losses. So of course you can believe Nadal may edge Fed on all surfaces, but dominating the field it what secures the #1 ranking, not just 1 player.

Limpinhitter
03-14-2012, 08:57 AM
#2 Nalbandian

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 08:59 AM
Fair enough. But in his peak you could say Fed's best surface was grass, not HC. What was the distributions of their meetings on grass vs clay during those years?

We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:01 AM
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.

Federer was also well able to beat Nadal on clay in 2006. In any case, the point is the # of meetings. on various surfaces. You say HC is Fed's best surface, well how many times did they meet on HC from 2004-2007? Compare that with clay and you will see a skew.

TMF
03-14-2012, 09:03 AM
#2 Nalbandian

Everytime you post the more i question your tennis knowledge.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:05 AM
Federer was also well able to beat Nadal on clay in 2006. In any case, the point is the # of meetings. on various surfaces. You say HC is Fed's best surface, well how many times did they meet on HC from 2004-2007? Compare that with clay and you will see a skew.

2004-2007 Nadal wasn't at his prime.
There is no skew man, the H2H just is how it is.

You like to do that prime, not prime stuff, with some Player1.0, Player 1.5, Player2.0 stuff which is nonsense to me.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 09:06 AM
The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.

As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.

No but what you can compare is the fact over 50% of their meetings have been on clay despite it being about 1/3 of the tournaments on the ATP tour.

Keep digging though. The more you say that Nadal would have a better chance of beating Federer on indoor hard just keeps reinforcing the fact that if a surface doesn't take Nadal's spin well he is vulnerable.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:07 AM
2004-2007 Nadal wasn't at his prime.
There is no skew man, the H2H just is how it is.

You like to do that prime, not prime stuff, with some Player1.0, Player 1.5, Player2.0 stuff which is nonsense to me.

You gotta be kidding me. 2007 Nadal has already won 3 slams by Wimby time, reaches the final, almost beats Fed, and he's not prime? What a joke. And you know it.

kragster
03-14-2012, 09:07 AM
Against the field no question, peak Fed is a lot better than peak Rafa. In fact post peak Fed still dismantles any one outside the top 4.

Against each other peak Rafa wins the majority. Although the H2H is skewed because of the predominance of clay meetings, an even surface distribution is illogical because the tour is not designed evenly. A logical surface meetings distribution would follow the year schedule. Basically something like 40% meetings on slow HC, 20% on fast HC, 30% on clay and 10% on grass.

Slow HC Rafa 3- Fed 1
Fast HC Fed 2, Rafa 0
Clay Rafa 3- Fed 0
Grass Fed 1 - Rafa 0

Overall 6-4 in favor of Rafa. Repeat this over about 30 meetings and the normalized H2H should be something like 18-12. So instead of 2:1 (current) it should be more like 1.5:1. That diversion aside I think the intent of this topic was performance against the field. And its really no contest there, Fed is just too good against the field.

PCXL-Fan
03-14-2012, 09:08 AM
Everytime you post the more i question your tennis knowledge.

he's right you know Nalbandian could EASILY be in the top 2-3 if only he had better coaching and wasn't sidelined by injuries

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 09:08 AM
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.

So Nadal beat Federer in 2007 at Wimbledon? Oh wait he didn't.

monfed
03-14-2012, 09:09 AM
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.

Wait,what? Fed wasn't at his peak in Wimby 07. Prime? Sure.
And Nadal lost quite convincingly in the 5th set,6-2 in that final.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:09 AM
No but what you can compare is the fact over 50% of their meetings have been on clay despite it being about 1/3 of the tournaments on the ATP tour.

Keep digging though. The more you say that Nadal would have a better chance of beating Federer on indoor hard just keeps reinforcing the fact that if a surface doesn't take Nadal's spin well he is vulnerable.

This is actually the definitive proof that it's simply a matchup advantage in the Fed vs Nadal case. The ***** always counter with why Fed has no problem with any other lefties, and the data indicate, take away the awesome spin from Nadal and he becomes useless against Fed. Keep that awesome spin for Nadal and make him right handed and he becomes useless against Fed. Only with the combination of awesome spin and lefty does he have a chance against Fed, and all of that could only be realized on clay for the most part.

Devilito
03-14-2012, 09:11 AM
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Petros
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Hewitt
6. Nalbandian
7. Roddick
8. Murray
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero

Fixed.......

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:11 AM
Against the field no question, peak Fed is a lot better than peak Rafa. In fact post peak Fed still dismantles any one outside the top 4.

Against each other peak Rafa wins the majority. Although the H2H is skewed because of the predominance of clay meetings, an even surface distribution is illogical because the tour is not designed evenly. A logical surface meetings distribution would follow the year schedule. Basically something like 40% meetings on slow HC, 20% on fast HC, 30% on clay and 10% on grass.

Slow HC Rafa 3- Fed 1
Fast HC Fed 2, Rafa 0
Clay Rafa 3- Fed 0
Grass Fed 1 - Rafa 0

Overall 6-4 in favor of Rafa. So instead of 2:1 (current) it should be more like 1.5:1. That diversion aside I think the intent of this topic was performance against the field. And its really no contest there, Fed is just too good against the field.

This is a very fair and unbiased assessment from a *********. I pretty much agree with this except that I think slow HC would be tied or maybe 3-2 for Nadal. Don't think Fed can ever lead the H2H against Nadal because of the matchup, but there is no doubt with anyone with half a brain that the H2H is indeed skewed as it stands.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:15 AM
You gotta be kidding me. 2007 Nadal has already won 3 slams by Wimby time, reaches the final, almost beats Fed, and he's not prime? What a joke. And you know it.

Nadal was at his prime in freakin 2007??
Sweet lord he had yet to reach a HC Semifinal and you think he was in his prime??
Holy fckin cow, this is ridiculous.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:18 AM
Nadal was at his prime in freakin 2007??
Sweet lord he had yet to reach a HC Semifinal and you think he was in his prime??
Holy fckin cow, this is ridiculous.

Dude, any 3 slam winner in his prime no matter how you slice it.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:22 AM
Dude, any 3 slam winner in his prime no matter how you slice it.

Nope, I think you know very well that you got caught on that point.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:22 AM
Nope, I think you know very well that you got caught on that point.

How so? Please explain.

Gorecki
03-14-2012, 09:24 AM
oh my... Kuerten never peaked...

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:25 AM
How so? Please explain.

You know it, you rascal ;)

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:27 AM
You know it, you rascal ;)

I don't really. Are you referring to Djokovic 1.0 vs. 2.0? I've always acknowledged his 2008 slam was a fluke and out of the norm.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:30 AM
I don't really. Are you referring to Djokovic 1.0 vs. 2.0? I've always acknowledged his 2008 slam was a fluke and out of the norm.

Nope, was referring to Nadal not being at his peak in 2007.

As for Djokovic, his Ao2008 was definately not a fluke imo, I always knew the kid was more than "one slam wonder" material.
And I still think there is not such thing as 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 crap.
Fed is just Fed, Nole just Nole, Nadal just Nadal with ups and downs.

monfed
03-14-2012, 09:30 AM
Against the field no question, peak Fed is a lot better than peak Rafa. In fact post peak Fed still dismantles any one outside the top 4.

Against each other peak Rafa wins the majority. Although the H2H is skewed because of the predominance of clay meetings, an even surface distribution is illogical because the tour is not designed evenly. A logical surface meetings distribution would follow the year schedule. Basically something like 40% meetings on slow HC, 20% on fast HC, 30% on clay and 10% on grass.

Slow HC Rafa 3- Fed 1
Fast HC Fed 2, Rafa 0
Clay Rafa 3- Fed 0
Grass Fed 1 - Rafa 0

Overall 6-4 in favor of Rafa. Repeat this over about 30 meetings and the normalized H2H should be something like 18-12. So instead of 2:1 (current) it should be more like 1.5:1. That diversion aside I think the intent of this topic was performance against the field. And its really no contest there, Fed is just too good against the field.

Great post I'd have to say, but just one query. Did you factor in indoors in the surface distribution because it's from Sept-Dec? And I'm not quite sure if Nadal would meet Fed only once on grass because Fed's a 7 time finalist while Nadal's a 5 time finalist.

But, 100% agree with the accuracy of the H2H. Nadal wins slow HC and clay, Fed wins fast HC and grass. MAJOR PROPS TO YOU!

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:35 AM
Nope, was referring to Nadal not being at his peak in 2007.

As for Djokovic, his Ao2008 was definately not a fluke imo, I always knew the kid was more than "one slam wonder" material.
And I still think there is not such thing as 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 crap.
Fed is just Fed, Nole just Nole, Nadal just Nadal with ups and downs.

But you can't deny their respective domination on certain surfaces. 4-0 on indoor is something that stands out as is 10-2 on clay. If these guys were just themselves with ups and downs then the W-L on various surfaces should even out. But we don't see that.

TMF
03-14-2012, 09:35 AM
he's right you know Nalbandian could EASILY be in the top 2-3 if only he had better coaching and wasn't sidelined by injuries

Assuming we are talking about peak at every surfaces, the answer is still no.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:38 AM
But you can't deny their respective domination on certain surfaces. 4-0 on indoor is something that stands out as is 10-2 on clay. If these guys were just themselves with ups and downs then the W-L on various surfaces should even out. But we don't see that.

I don't deny their domination at all.
But we cannot say Fed would be 12-0 or 10-2 if they played the same amount of matches on IHC as they did on CC.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-14-2012, 09:40 AM
I don't deny their domination at all.
But we cannot say Fed would be 12-0 or 10-2 if they played the same amount of matches on IHC as they did on CC.

Sure that's true, but you can do some extrapolation. I'm sure you can guess what the H2H would be if they met only 10 times in their whole career and it was all on indoor, or all on clay. In each of those cases the H2H numbers would be skewed.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 09:52 AM
Sure that's true, but you can do some extrapolation. I'm sure you can guess what the H2H would be if they met only 10 times in their whole career and it was all on indoor, or all on clay. In each of those cases the H2H numbers would be skewed.


You sure can do that,but it would just be a guess.
That whole coulda, shoulda, woudla thing is based on certain thoughts.
But i do get your point mate.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 10:45 AM
Nadal was at his prime in freakin 2007??
Sweet lord he had yet to reach a HC Semifinal and you think he was in his prime??
Holy fckin cow, this is ridiculous.

Lol, I guess Federer only hit his Prime in 2009 then when he completed the career slam! I mean you're completely insane. You're not in your prime unless you've made a semi at a Hard Court major?

purge
03-14-2012, 11:16 AM
federer in 2

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 11:43 AM
Lol, I guess Federer only hit his Prime in 2009 then when he completed the career slam! I mean you're completely insane. You're not in your prime unless you've made a semi at a Hard Court major?

Do you even read your own posts dude?
Federer was always a good Clay Court player, obviously the second best of this era.
You saying that Federer would have won RG if Nadal was on the other side of the net? Cmon dude

Also you obviously didn't see a single pre 2008 match of Nadal. Otherwise your post would be a waste.
If you're curious just start a poll on it, any sane Federer fan would say that Nadal of 2007 was not in his prime yet.

Winners or Errors
03-14-2012, 11:44 AM
You can't say that dude.
I say the H2H was skewed by HC in favor of Fed.
How bout that?

Sure you can. Nadal rarely played Fed on hardcourt early, because he was usually out of the tournament before the round in which he'd meet Fed. Fed played Nadal many times on clay, because he was in the late rounds/final of most clay tournaments.

It's not Fed's fault that Nadal didn't get far enough into tournaments to play him on HC during that period.

The fact remains that most early meetings between Fed and Nadal were on the only surface Nadal could compete on at the time.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 11:48 AM
Sure you can. Nadal rarely played Fed on hardcourt early, because he was usually out of the tournament before the round in which he'd meet Fed. Fed played Nadal many times on clay, because he was in the late rounds/final of most clay tournaments.

It's not Fed's fault that Nadal didn't get far enough into tournaments to play him on HC during that period.

The fact remains that most early meetings between Fed and Nadal were on the only surface Nadal could compete on at the time.

Nadal already beat him on HC earlier.

Winners or Errors
03-14-2012, 11:50 AM
Nadal already beat him on HC earlier.

Not my point. My point is that there aren't many meetings early on anything but clay. One win... that's not much data.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 11:56 AM
Not my point. My point is that there aren't many meetings early on anything but clay. One win... that's not much data.

What the hell is your point then?

That Federer wasn't allowed to beat baby Nadal on HC?
The H2H is just how it is, who says that Fed would have won on all those occasions, considering that Nadal is a better Clay Court player than Fed is a CC player.

Crazy man
03-14-2012, 11:59 AM
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Nalbandian
6. Roddick
7. Murray
8. Davydenko
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero

Nalbandian ahead of Roddick.



Whoever agrees with that notion is either a troll or a moron. Murray ahead of Ferrero? Seriously???

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 12:01 PM
Nalbandian ahead of Roddick.



Whoever agrees with that notion is either a troll or a moron. Murray ahead of Ferrero? Seriously???

Nalbandian at his best is mad scary, he is definately an underachiever looking at his injury prone career.

Winners or Errors
03-14-2012, 12:03 PM
What the hell is your point then?

That Federer wasn't allowed to beat baby Nadal on HC?
The H2H is just how it is, who says that Fed would have won on all those occasions, considering that Nadal is a better Clay Court player than Fed is a CC player.

Yes. We'll never know if the "matchup" problem would have developed had Nadal and Federer's H2H been more even, instead of on Nadal's best surface, the surface he may be the GOAT of...

Certainly interesting to speculate, but the H2H is definitely skewed toward Nadal because he wasn't good enough to win through to play against Federer when he was younger on anything but clay.

I often think, watching those matches, that the matchup issue is more mental than anything else. When I watch them play, Fed usually starts well and gets frustrated by Nadal's perseverance, at which point he implodes. Just MHO. What would it have been like if the surface balance had been more even, or even in Fed's favor?

LeeD
03-14-2012, 12:05 PM
Physical peak?
Emotional peak?
Skillset peak?
They seldom peak at the same time, creating huge matchup problems.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 12:11 PM
Yes. We'll never know if the "matchup" problem would have developed had Nadal and Federer's H2H been more even, instead of on Nadal's best surface, the surface he may be the GOAT of...

Certainly interesting to speculate, but the H2H is definitely skewed toward Nadal because he wasn't good enough to win through to play against Federer when he was younger on anything but clay.

I often think, watching those matches, that the matchup issue is more mental than anything else. When I watch them play, Fed usually starts well and gets frustrated by Nadal's perseverance, at which point he implodes. Just MHO. What would it have been like if the surface balance had been more even, or even in Fed's favor?

I get your point and even afree with it, but as I said to DFTW, it's just speculation.
If they played on HC in 2005,06,06,08 you could say that Nadal lost cause Federer was in his prime and Nadal was not.
But it is also not a given that Fed would have won those meetings.

It certainly is a mental issue, but I think it would have developed even if the H2H was more balanced cause Fed would have failed to win that CGS over and over again losing to the same guy from 2005 on.

joeri888
03-14-2012, 12:43 PM
Nalbandian ahead of Roddick.



Whoever agrees with that notion is either a troll or a moron. Murray ahead of Ferrero? Seriously???

Just argue why i Am wrong instead of Calling me moron. I was first up and just tried to make good list. You can obviously disagree with it!

Too bad its all about fed and nad again

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 12:46 PM
Just argue why i Am wrong instead of Calling me moron. I was first up and just tried to make good list. You can obviously disagree with it!

Too bad its all about fed and nad again

Nah, the list was pretty good imo.
Sorry for that conversation with DFTW.

Bobby Jr
03-14-2012, 01:27 PM
No contest at all, Federer would far and away be #1

I'd put it more like

Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Del Potro
Soderling (yes, don't laugh - in peak mode he was amazing)
Tsonga
....

If it about peak playing ability of current players than neither Hewitt nor Roddick make the top ten imo. People who would be ahead of them include Berdych, Murray, Davydenko.

billnepill
03-14-2012, 02:12 PM
Nope, was referring to Nadal not being at his peak in 2007.

As for Djokovic, his Ao2008 was definately not a fluke imo, I always knew the kid was more than "one slam wonder" material.
And I still think there is not such thing as 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 crap.
Fed is just Fed, Nole just Nole, Nadal just Nadal with ups and downs.

If there is no such thing as you say why do you say nadal wasn't at his peak in 2007? I am confused

fed_rulz
03-14-2012, 02:30 PM
If there is no such thing as you say why do you say nadal wasn't at his peak in 2007? I am confused

me thinks someone got pwned :)

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 03:00 PM
If there is no such thing as you say why do you say nadal wasn't at his peak in 2007? I am confused

You would have a sound point there, IF you read the whole conversation.
It was all about DFTW, who would drop that, peak-not peak, 1.0 2.0 stuff in a single match and within a few weeks or months.
That was my point.

And yes, imo there is no way Nadal was already at his peak in 2007.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:05 PM
Do you even read your own posts dude?
Federer was always a good Clay Court player, obviously the second best of this era.
You saying that Federer would have won RG if Nadal was on the other side of the net? Cmon dude

Also you obviously didn't see a single pre 2008 match of Nadal. Otherwise your post would be a waste.
If you're curious just start a poll on it, any sane Federer fan would say that Nadal of 2007 was not in his prime yet.

My point is that you don't have to make finals of all surfaces to be considered in your prime. It seems that everyone considers Federer's level of domination (2004-2007) to now be indicative of what a prime should look like. Federer was a good clay courter? Since when? I mean he won Hamburg but never seemed to be consistent in the other clay tourneys and that is the exact thing you are saying about Nadal. You're saying while he might have had success on hard court, it wasn't continued or consistent and that more or less defines when someone has entered their prime.

Nadal had won 2 HC masters in 2005 and many Nadal fans claim that Federer was lucky Nadal had injured his foot and was unable to compete in the 2006 AO. Nadal might not of been peak in 07, but he was damn well in his prime. He pushed Federer to five at Miami in 2005 also. If he wasn't prime then I guess it means his ability to beat Federer is ONLY due to lefty spinning forehand.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:22 PM
I get your point and even afree with it, but as I said to DFTW, it's just speculation.
If they played on HC in 2005,06,06,08 you could say that Nadal lost cause Federer was in his prime and Nadal was not.
But it is also not a given that Fed would have won those meetings.

It certainly is a mental issue, but I think it would have developed even if the H2H was more balanced cause Fed would have failed to win that CGS over and over again losing to the same guy from 2005 on.

So Nadal wasn't in his prime until 2009 because he hadn't won a HC major? I guess that means Federer wasn't in his prime until 2009 then also. Amazing that Federer had 237 weeks at #1 before he had entered his prime. Well prime by your rationalization.

There is NO ONE in the universe besides you that thinks Nadal wasn't prime in 2008.

PSNELKE
03-14-2012, 03:23 PM
My point is that you don't have to make finals of all surfaces to be considered in your prime. It seems that everyone considers Federer's level of domination (2004-2007) to now be indicative of what a prime should look like.

Nadal had won 2 HC masters in 2005 and many Nadal fans claim that Federer was lucky Nadal had injured his foot and was unable to compete in the 2006 AO. Nadal might not of been peak in 07, but he was damn well in his prime. He pushed Federer to five at Miami in 2005 also. If he wasn't prime then I guess it means his ability to beat Federer is ONLY due to lefty spinning forehand.

You don't, but the fact that he reached those HC SFs past 2007 and even won HC majors, just shows the difference between Nadal the past 2 or 3 years and 2007.
Also why do you just bring up Federer?? We all know that Nadal had the mental edge over him since 2006.
Nadal wasn't falling to Fed on HCs he was falling to guys like Youzhny, Gonzalez, Blake which peak/prime Nadal would not.

VOLLEY KING
03-14-2012, 03:25 PM
All the players are at the peak of their powers.

Nadal and the Joker have gotten better and Fed has stayed the same.



.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:25 PM
You don't, but the fact that he reached those HC SFs past 2007 and even won HC majors, just shows the difference between Nadal the past 2 or 3 years and 2007.
Also why do you just bring up Federer?? We all know that Nadal had the mental edge over him since 2006.
Nadal wasn't falling to Fed on HCs he was falling to guys like Youzhny, Gonzalez, Blake which peak/prime Nadal would not.

Well I am glad you realize that Nadal wasn't falling to Fed. Sort of hard when they are ranked number 1 and 2 in the world. Only place they would meet would be finals, or in the masters cup. I think we all remember the 2006 and 2007 masters cup.

You also said that Nadal wasn't prime in 2008, meaning that your criteria for prime is winning a major on all surfaces.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:26 PM
All the players are at the peak of their powers.

Nadal and the Joker have gotten better and Fed has stayed the same.



.

New coke bottle eye glasses for you.

jackson vile
03-14-2012, 03:27 PM
Nadal was not in his prime then, I think it is so strange that these people want to make believe that Nadal was prime since age 19 or so and to this day is still prime, and will claim that he is prime until he retires at age 28-30.

However, they will then claim that Federer was only prime for 3-4 years




My point is that you don't have to make finals of all surfaces to be considered in your prime. It seems that everyone considers Federer's level of domination (2004-2007) to now be indicative of what a prime should look like. Federer was a good clay courter? Since when? I mean he won Hamburg but never seemed to be consistent in the other clay tourneys and that is the exact thing you are saying about Nadal. You're saying while he might have had success on hard court, it wasn't continued or consistent and that more or less defines when someone has entered their prime.

Nadal had won 2 HC masters in 2005 and many Nadal fans claim that Federer was lucky Nadal had injured his foot and was unable to compete in the 2006 AO. Nadal might not of been peak in 07, but he was damn well in his prime. He pushed Federer to five at Miami in 2005 also. If he wasn't prime then I guess it means his ability to beat Federer is ONLY due to lefty spinning forehand.

li0scc0
03-14-2012, 03:27 PM
All the players are at the peak of their powers.

Nadal and the Joker have gotten better and Fed has stayed the same.



.


And Rod Laver is still as good today as he was 45 years ago.
Nobody ever declines. Infinite progress.

billnepill
03-14-2012, 03:29 PM
All the players are at the peak of their powers.

Nadal and the Joker have gotten better and Fed has stayed the same.



.

Watch out, federer might have not peaked yet

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:29 PM
Nadal was not in his prime then, I think it is so strange that these people want to make believe that Nadal was prime since age 19 or so and to this day is still prime, and will claim that he is prime until he retires at age 28-30.

However, they will then claim that Federer was only prime for 3-4 years

No he wasn't prime in 2005 and I never said he was, but he was in 2007, which is the point of contention. My point is Nadal had already been successful on hard court, just not majors.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:31 PM
Watch out, federer might have not peaked yet

I agree. Based on PSNELKE's idea of what establishes someone prime it's clear Federer only entered his prime after winning the FO in 09. Nadal couldn't be prime until 2009 because he had no achievements on hard court.

jackson vile
03-14-2012, 03:33 PM
No he wasn't prime in 2005 and I never said he was, but he was in 2007, which is the point of contention. My point is Nadal had already been successful on hard court, just not majors.

What years was Federer "prime" by your criteria and what years was Nadal "prime"?

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 03:37 PM
What years was Federer "prime" by your criteria and what years was Nadal "prime"?

Federer entered his prime in 2003 and it ended in 2009-AO 2010.

Nadal entered his prime in 2006 after reaching the Wimbledon final and I'd say that Nadal's prime is still going and that 2012 will be his last year in his prime.

jackson vile
03-14-2012, 03:49 PM
Federer entered his prime in 2003 and it ended in 2009-AO 2010.

Nadal entered his prime in 2006 after reaching the Wimbledon final and I'd say that Nadal's prime is still going and that 2012 will be his last year in his prime.

I wanted to make sure that we were not confusing prime with peak here is the reason that I asked.

What criteria are you using to gauge a players prime? There was a debate about how to gauge a players prime, however there no takers. I would be interested in reading what you have to say on this topic.

Sid_Vicious
03-14-2012, 03:58 PM
Lol. Nadal has twice the slams as Novak, but seeing Novak kick his *** multiple times is enough proof for people on this forum to declare that Djokovic is a greater player than Nadal regardless of the slam count. Funny how Nadal's domination of Federer is never taken into consideration by the majority of this forum when they immediately place Federer right at number 1. I guess achievements only matter when Federer's career is discussed.

MichaelNadal
03-14-2012, 04:01 PM
Lol. Nadal has twice the slams as Novak, but seeing Novak kick his *** multiple times is enough proof for people on this forum to declare that Djokovic is a greater player than Nadal regardless of the slam count. Funny how Nadal's domination of Federer is never taken into consideration by the majority of this forum when they immediately place Federer right at number 1. I guess achievements only matter when Federer's career is discussed.

You are easily the best Federer fan on this board. My hat to you sir.

kragster
03-14-2012, 04:05 PM
You are easily the best Federer fan on this board. My hat to you sir.

+1. There are actually quite a few decent Fed fans around, just like there are quite a few decent Nadal fans around. Unfortunately, the posters who post the most (from either side) give both fan bases a bad name.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 04:09 PM
I wanted to make sure that we were not confusing prime with peak here is the reason that I asked.

What criteria are you using to gauge a players prime? There was a debate about how to gauge a players prime, however there no takers. I would be interested in reading what you have to say on this topic.

Criteria will be different for each player. For Federer I feel it's his start of tour domination and his game came together at the WTF in 2003.

For Nadal I feel him repeating at the FO and making the final of Wimbledon more or less mean he is in his prime. He had enough HC achievements at the start of 2007 which is when talk of him breaking through on hard like he did grass in the previous year. The other thing that needs to be looked at is the fact Nadal with his game wouldn't be as successful on HC as he would have been on grass/clay ever.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-14-2012, 04:10 PM
+1. There are actually quite a few decent Fed fans around, just like there are quite a few decent Nadal fans around. Unfortunately, the posters who post the most (from either side) give both fan bases a bad name.

Hit the nail on the head.

Limpinhitter
03-14-2012, 04:13 PM
Everytime you post the more i question your tennis knowledge.

That's because you don't know much about tennis.

Limpinhitter
03-14-2012, 04:15 PM
And Rod Laver is still as good today as he was 45 years ago.
Nobody ever declines. Infinite progress.

Laver, being retired, I don't think is considered a current player by the OP. Although, he could have clarified by entitling this thread "currently playing on the pro tour."

Towser83
03-14-2012, 04:27 PM
Nadal was not in his prime then, I think it is so strange that these people want to make believe that Nadal was prime since age 19 or so and to this day is still prime, and will claim that he is prime until he retires at age 28-30.

However, they will then claim that Federer was only prime for 3-4 years

Erm, a lot of Nadal fans count Nadal's prime as 4 months in 2008 :lol:

Baby Nadal up til 2008, 2009 doesn't count, prime again in 2010 but not as prime as 2008, and then 2011 onwards EXTREME decline. During which time he makes craploads of finals.

The truth with Federer is his absolute best was from 2004-2007 tailing off in 2007 but still being good enough at most of the big events. Maybe a short time to some people, but when you win most matches you play, 4 years is quite a long time to do that for. Physically Federer lost nothing in 2008 after the initial bout of mono, but the mental strain showed. Now he wasn't terrible, in the slams he was still good enough to beat most guys, but not a prime Nadal, because he always has to be at his best to beat him. A notch below and he'll lose a tight match.

With Nadal he was in his prime as a clay player from early on, but not on hardcourt. Now he is in his prime as an all courter though his clay game looks worse than 2006-2009. Even in 2010 he wasn't as good as he had been, despite winning the clay sweep.

Towser83
03-14-2012, 04:29 PM
Lol. Nadal has twice the slams as Novak, but seeing Novak kick his *** multiple times is enough proof for people on this forum to declare that Djokovic is a greater player than Nadal regardless of the slam count. Funny how Nadal's domination of Federer is never taken into consideration by the majority of this forum when they immediately place Federer right at number 1. I guess achievements only matter when Federer's career is discussed.

I think Djokovic has a better game, but quite obviously Nadal has been better at playing to his strengths through the years and I doubt Djokovic will ever match his achievements (in slams wins anyway)

MichaelNadal
03-14-2012, 04:31 PM
Erm, a lot of Nadal fans count Nadal's prime as 4 months in 2008 :lol:

Baby Nadal up til 2008, 2009 doesn't count, prime again in 2010 but not as prime as 2008, and then 2011 onwards EXTREME decline. During which time he makes craploads of finals.

The truth with Federer is his absolute best was from 2004-2007 tailing off in 2007 but still being good enough at most of the big events. Maybe a short time to some people, but when you win most matches you play, 4 years is quite a long time to do that for. Physically Federer lost nothing in 2008 after the initial bout of mono, but the mental strain showed. Now he wasn't terrible, in the slams he was still good enough to beat most guys, but not a prime Nadal, because he always has to be at his best to beat him. A notch below and he'll lose a tight match.

With Nadal he was in his prime as a clay player from early on, but not on hardcourt. Now he is in his prime as an all courter though his clay game looks worse than 2006-2009. Even in 2010 he wasn't as good as he had been, despite winning the clay sweep.

I agree with almost everything you said but he played better on clay in 2010 than 2009 to me. (and no not bc of the FO)

The-Champ
03-14-2012, 04:44 PM
That's because you don't know much about tennis.

How dare you question TMF's knowledge! he is the encyclopedia of everything Federer.

The-Champ
03-14-2012, 04:54 PM
With Nadal he was in his prime as a clay player from early on, but not on hardcourt. Now he is in his prime as an all courter though his clay game looks worse than 2006-2009. Even in 2010 he wasn't as good as he had been, despite winning the clay sweep.

I agree with this. I honestly believe that if you put peak/prime Federer against current Nadal on clay...Nadal would be blown off court. But Nadal is a much better HC player now than he was pre 2008.

DragonBlaze
03-14-2012, 06:10 PM
Fed no. 1
Nadal 2
Djoker 3

Djokovic has to achieve more before I can say he was the 2nd best player of this era. Not yet, no way, a bit weird to see people placing him at number 2. Poor Nadal, gets no respect on these boards :confused:.

Although I doubt he cares :lol:

Towser83
03-14-2012, 06:13 PM
I agree with almost everything you said but he played better on clay in 2010 than 2009 to me. (and no not bc of the FO)

Kind of a close call. I mean he didn't play badly in either 2009 or 2010 in my opinion, but he looked less assured. In 2009 I thought he played great in MC and Rome,a bit less so in Madrid and then looked like he was starting to play very well just before the match with Soderling at the french, I think he beat Hewitt? and looked very good. In fact people write off his 2009 season, but after Wimbledon he was pretty consistant in the HC season, making semis and finals and only losing to good players.

I agree with this. I honestly believe that if you put peak/prime Federer against current Nadal on clay...Nadal would be blown off court. But Nadal is a much better HC player now than he was pre 2008.

yeah the Federer of 2006 would have had a good shot at beating the Nadal of last year on clay. MC, RG and especially Rome were all really closely fought matches in 2006 and Nadal was playing much better than he did last year on clay.

Limpinhitter
03-14-2012, 06:22 PM
How dare you question TMF's knowledge! he is the encyclopedia of everything Federer.

TMF is the Britannica of Federer! Unfortunately, he's so busy counting things he doesn't have time to gain knowledge of anything else. In fact, TMF is the Art "Tappy" Larsen of TT.

Russeljones
03-14-2012, 11:31 PM
If they were all playing at their absolute peak and were all doing so consistently, day in and day out, I think:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
5. Del Potro
6. Nalbandian
7. Roddick
8. Hewitt
9. Tsonga
10. Davydenko

Still see the current top 4 there although I put Nadal as no.1 because he was still leading the H2H with Federer even in the latter's peak years (2004-7). Djokovic is down to no.3 because I still think he would be edged even now by peak Nadal and peak Federer. I'm guessing Murray stays at no.4 because he was beating the likes of Del Potro when the latter was at his peak (2009) and was beating Hewitt and Roddick when they were both not too far from their peak years (2006 or so).

Just my twopennyworth.

Going to refer you back to this post whenever you appear to argue the fact that you possess even a gram of tennis knowledge.

Russeljones
03-14-2012, 11:36 PM
Mine:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Nalbandian
5. Murray
6. Del Potro
7. Hewitt
8. Roddick
9. Davydenko
10. Ferrero

Colin
03-15-2012, 01:15 AM
The usual suspects...

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Roddick
5. Nalbandian
6. Del Potro
7. Tsonga
8. Murray
9. Davydenko
10. Berdych, Soderling or Hewitt

FlamEnemY
03-15-2012, 05:25 AM
While at their peak, both Federer and Djokovic showed that they straight-out dominate the whole field. Federer more so than Djokovic.

Djokovic also showed that he is perfectly capable of dealing with Nadal.

Therefore, it goes like this.

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4/5. Hewitt (yes, I think he is that good)
5/4. Roddick
6/7. Ferrero
7/6. Murray
8. Nalby
9. Tsonga
10. Davydenko

Limpinhitter
03-15-2012, 05:31 AM
Peak Nalbandian beats everyone but peak Federer! You can certainly make a great case for putting Ralph and Djoko above Nalby. But, putting Murray, Del Potro, Roddick, Hewitt (REALLY?), Tsonga, OR Davydenko above "peak" Nalbandian is just stupid!

Mainad
03-15-2012, 07:38 AM
Going to refer you back to this post whenever you appear to argue the fact that you possess even a gram of tennis knowledge.

Why don't you try and grow up and mature a little? It might actually be worth reading one or two of your posts if that were ever to happen although, personally, I very much doubt it. In the meantime, go away and read a comic or something, and stop wasting bandwidth on here, there's a good boy!

PSNELKE
03-15-2012, 08:01 AM
Peak Nalbandian beats everyone but peak Federer! You can certainly make a great case for putting Ralph and Djoko above Nalby. But, putting Murray, Del Potro, Roddick, Hewitt (REALLY?), Tsonga, OR Davydenko above "peak" Nalbandian is just stupid!

Not active but I say peak Safin beats everyone who ever stepped on a tennis court including Fed.

PSNELKE
03-15-2012, 08:08 AM
Well I am glad you realize that Nadal wasn't falling to Fed. Sort of hard when they are ranked number 1 and 2 in the world. Only place they would meet would be finals, or in the masters cup. I think we all remember the 2006 and 2007 masters cup.

You also said that Nadal wasn't prime in 2008, meaning that your criteria for prime is winning a major on all surfaces.

You guys are A LOT into the DATA.
Just check the data and you will see, he wasn't able to show the level he showed nowadays.
2007 Nadal is far away from peak Nadal.
That said, a player doesn't need to win majors on all three surfaces to be at his peak/prime.

Funny also how you say that Federer was in his peak from 2003-2010 but in 2005 he wasn't in his prime. WHAT THE FCK DUDE. As I asked before, are you even reading your own posts?

Thirdly in your book anyone who beats Federer is automatically in his prime. LMAO

Limpinhitter
03-15-2012, 08:36 AM
Not active but I say peak Safin beats everyone who ever stepped on a tennis court including Fed.

Mmmm! That's a close one. The difference between Safin and Nalbandian is that Nalbandian's career was hampered by injuries. Safin's career was hampered by . . . being nuts.

PSNELKE
03-15-2012, 08:41 AM
Mmmm! That's a close one. The difference between Safin and Nalbandian is that Nalbandian's career was hampered by injuries. Safin's career was hampered by . . . being nuts.

He is the only one who cared less about tennis than Nalbandian. (Maybe Gulbis, but he ain't as talented as these two)
The guy would rather go for some hookers, than stepping on the court to practice, but when he was on, that would be some scary stuff.
Awesome game to watch and he was quite a character.
I miss that crazy *******. :lol:

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-15-2012, 09:26 AM
You guys are A LOT into the DATA.
Just check the data and you will see, he wasn't able to show the level he showed nowadays.
2007 Nadal is far away from peak Nadal.
That said, a player doesn't need to win majors on all three surfaces to be at his peak/prime.

Funny also how you say that Federer was in his peak from 2003-2010 but in 2005 he wasn't in his prime. WHAT THE FCK DUDE. As I asked before, are you even reading your own posts?

Thirdly in your book anyone who beats Federer is automatically in his prime. LMAO

Nadal was not in his prime then, I think it is so strange that these people want to make believe that Nadal was prime since age 19 or so and to this day is still prime, and will claim that he is prime until he retires at age 28-30.

However, they will then claim that Federer was only prime for 3-4 years


No he wasn't prime in 2005 and I never said he was, but he was in 2007, which is the point of contention. My point is Nadal had already been successful on hard court, just not majors.


You mean this post clearly referring to Rafa not being prime when he was in 2005? If you can't read(which we now know you obviously can't), you should be quiet.

Nadal was 19 when he won his first French Open in 2005. My claiming he wasn't prime in 2005 when he was 19 was a reference to Rafa and not to Federer. Was Federer 19 in 2005? Nope. Learn to read or go back to your cave PENSLKE :)


Criteria will be different for each player. For Federer I feel it's his start of tour domination and his game came together at the WTF in 2003.

For Nadal I feel him repeating at the FO and making the final of Wimbledon more or less mean he is in his prime. He had enough HC achievements at the start of 2007 which is when talk of him breaking through on hard like he did grass in the previous year. The other thing that needs to be looked at is the fact Nadal with his game wouldn't be as successful on HC as he would have been on grass/clay ever.

Reading fail again PENSLKE. I said when he repeated RG and made the Wimbledon final.


If Federer and Nadal being #1 and #2 wasn't the reason they could only meet in finals of tournaments, what was the real reason then? Huh PENSLKE?

I get your point and even afree with it, but as I said to DFTW, it's just speculation.
If they played on HC in 2005,06,06,08 you could say that Nadal lost cause Federer was in his prime and Nadal was not.
But it is also not a given that Fed would have won those meetings.

It certainly is a mental issue, but I think it would have developed even if the H2H was more balanced cause Fed would have failed to win that CGS over and over again losing to the same guy from 2005 on.

Come on PENSLKE, you think Nadal wasn't prime in 2008. Get a clue.

PSNELKE
03-15-2012, 09:39 AM
Lol failed reading it properly, i confess.
But you didn't respond to the rest.
Check the DATA, as I said.


btw, being arrogant doesn't proove your point being right either.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-15-2012, 09:43 AM
Lol failed reading it properly, i confess.
But you didn't respond to the rest.
Check the DATA, as I said.


btw, being arrogant doesn't proove your point being right either.

What "DATA?" Post it here so everyone can see what you're referring to. Also, why wasn't Nadal prime in 2008?

PSNELKE
03-15-2012, 09:54 AM
What "DATA?" Post it here so everyone can see what you're referring to. Also, why wasn't Nadal prime in 2008?

2008 was a typo, Nadal definately was in his prime then.

Check his stats for 2007 and I am quite curious if you were watching any tennis in 2007???
Compared to 2007, he was better on every single surface since 2008.

You simply think anyone who beats Federer on a regular basis is in his prime. That's your criteria for prime/peak in this case.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-15-2012, 10:08 AM
I don't think that beating Federer = prime. I have been watching tennis before 2007. I started watching it in about 97 when I started taking lessons.

As for 2007, let's look at who he lost to in the bigger tourneys.

AO He lost to an unbelievably red hot Fernando Gonzalez. He beat Nadal by ripping winners. This guy was unbelievably hot. What was the winner to UE count? 50-3?

IW He beat Djoker for the title

Miami He lost to Djoker in the QF

Canada He lost to Djoker in the SF

Cincinnati Pulled out due to injury

USO Lost in QF to Ferrer

Madrid Lost to Nalbandian in the QF

Paris Lost to Nalbandian in the F

YEC Lost to Federer in the SF

Those results seem pretty good to me. Nalbandian was playing his best tennis ever. Djoker has always been tough against Nadal on HC. Gonzalez was on fire. And well Ferrer just seems to do pretty well against him on HC. Had Nadal gone through Gonzalez, I think he would have been in the AO final. I don't see him getting passed Novak at the USO in 07 though.

Fedex
03-15-2012, 10:09 AM
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Nalbandian
6. Roddick
7. Murray
8. Davydenko
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero

According to Pato Alvarez, invlolved in tennis for 50 years and Spain's national coach for 16 years, this would be his choice and I think he probably knows a bit more about tennis than most of us:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/13243702

"I was the national coach of Spain for 16 years, and Andy Murray is the best player I ever worked with,"

"You can't go wrong with Murray. He's the best there is. He's a better player than Nadal and the other top guys."

He did also identify temperamental issues when he first saw Murray eg concentration going astray but this thread is about which player is best at their peak so I guess, according to this, Murray would be right up there.

jackson vile
03-15-2012, 11:11 AM
Criteria will be different for each player. For Federer I feel it's his start of tour domination and his game came together at the WTF in 2003.

For Nadal I feel him repeating at the FO and making the final of Wimbledon more or less mean he is in his prime. He had enough HC achievements at the start of 2007 which is when talk of him breaking through on hard like he did grass in the previous year. The other thing that needs to be looked at is the fact Nadal with his game wouldn't be as successful on HC as he would have been on grass/clay ever.

This is a good analysis, look forward to more of your posts on other subjects as well.

TennisLovaLova
03-15-2012, 03:49 PM
Federer is bigger than tennis

infonoob
03-15-2012, 05:30 PM
1.Monfils
2.Federer
3.Djokovic
4.Nadal
5.Nalbandian
6.Delpo
7.Murray
8.Tsonga
9.Ferrero
10.Roddick

Apun94
03-16-2012, 01:38 AM
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Nalbandian
6. Roddick
7. Murray
8. Davydenko
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero

TBH, If Fed and Nadal were at their peaks, Fed would not be no1. Fed cannot beat a peak Nadal consistently. They'll probably meat in finals or semis and Fed wud loose most of the times. (On clay he'll never win any titles against peak Nadal)

ledwix
03-16-2012, 01:44 AM
You can't say that dude.
I say the H2H was skewed by HC in favor of Fed.
How bout that?

Well that would just be factually wrong, since Fed/Nadal have played a disproportionate number of matches on clay. Clay is 3 months out of 11, but they played the majority of their matches on it.

Nathaniel_Near
03-16-2012, 03:09 AM
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Nalbandian
6. Roddick
7. Murray
8. Davydenko
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero

I would have Nadal ahead of Nole, because at all their very bests I believe Nadal will stop Federer and Djokovic on clay and Federer will stop Nadal and Djokovic on grass and most hard courts. So the big loser would be Djokovic.

Nathaniel_Near
03-16-2012, 03:12 AM
TBH, If Fed and Nadal were at their peaks, Fed would not be no1. Fed cannot beat a peak Nadal consistently. They'll probably meat in finals or semis and Fed wud loose most of the times. (On clay he'll never win any titles against peak Nadal)

Roger would only meet Rafa in finals. I'm pretty sure as a duo they would make Nole suffer for the reasons I stated above. I think peak Roger beats peak Rafa at Wimbledon but loses at RG. Peak Nadal would be roasted often enough for Federer to claim considerably more HC Slams than himself or indeed El Nolio.

1.Fed - 13000
2.Nadal - 11000
3.Nole - 9500

Apun94
03-16-2012, 10:16 AM
Roger would only meet Rafa in finals. I'm pretty sure as a duo they would make Nole suffer for the reasons I stated above. I think peak Roger beats peak Rafa at Wimbledon but loses at RG. Peak Nadal would be roasted often enough for Federer to claim considerably more HC Slams than himself or indeed El Nolio.

1.Fed - 13000
2.Nadal - 11000
3.Nole - 9500

Look at Nadal right now, he only looses to Jokovic right now, (the results at the last 4 slams confirm that) so Nadal would also reach all the HC finals... I just dont see Fed winning against Nadal consistently. Even baby Nadal troubled peak Fed even on HC so i just dont see Fed no1. I m not saying peak Nadal is best ever, but he wud def give Fed a lot of trouble...

Agassifan
03-16-2012, 10:33 AM
I put Nadal as no.1 because he was still leading the H2H with Federer

The question was about who is the best player... it wasn't about H2H.

Crazy man
03-16-2012, 10:43 AM
1:Federer
2: Djokovic
3:Nadal
4:Roddick
5:Hewitt
6:Ferrero
7:JMDP
8:Murray
9:Soderling
10:Tsonga




1,2,3 are nearly on an even keel. 4 & 5, I chose Roddick because his peak year was better than Hewitt's peak year in terms of level of play and achievements but even then Hewitt has more slams so I'd say these two swap occasion. JMDP at his peak could be anywhere. Seriously at their peaks any of those slam champions are as good as each other in their own different ways. 1,2,3 are just a lot more consistent. Tsonga, Murray and Soderling are definately the best players without a slam title.