At their best, who would win?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

Depends on the case,.



Yes, but you're not playing in an extremely competitive field of the best professional chess players in the world now, are you?



It doesn't has to be either-or, it could be a combination of several factors.



Indeed, for example I'd say that the main reason Fed is having significantly more trouble with big hitters today (and in the last few years) than in his best days is because he's nowhere near as fast as he was.



Federer's best tennis came in 2004-2007, more than a few years ago.



Stats don't tell the whole story and are open to interpretation but their value in determining various things shouldn't be dismissed either.



It's a valid question but I don't think it has a simple answer, not usually anyway.



Everyone knows that holding serve is a combination of the effectiveness of your serve as a shot and the game backing up that serve.



We've had this discussion before, by and large people don't believe Fed declined in 2008 because of his losses to Nadal but the significant drop in the performance against the field (even excluding Nadal).

Of course the counter argument might be that the field has improved and made Fed look weaker as a consequence but for that theory to hold up we'll have to believe that Mardy Fish, James Blake, Stepanek, Karlovic and Roddick all somehow tremendously improved their games in 2008, needles to say I find the theory that Fed's level dropped to be far more plausible.

Actually I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me on any point.

I used to play tournament chess years ago so I did play some really top players in the past. I would talking about non tournament players for example who would allow me to defeat them easily in let's say a known book line.

Happy New Year to you and everyone here.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

abmk,

I think Kiki's putting us on with some of this with Kodes. I agree with your arguments about Kodes. I think I actually mentioned some of that in my posts. Honestly to mention Vines with Kodes is downright silly. Vines has been called the greatest ever and the reasons aren't bad. Vines (and please don't attack me Federer fans) is a better comparison with Federer than Kodes because so many have called him the GOAT. No one calls Kodes the GOAT. Vines has been argued to be the best athlete in the history of tennis with the best forehand and serve. Vines has also been the top player in the world for many years. Incidentally fyi Vines has the second best winning percentage I believe in majors outside of Bjorn Borg. I'm including Pro Majors in this. Kodes doesn't have that type of resume.

I think I already replied to your post comparing Vines to Federer ... I don't quite agree with it ..

Originally Posted by abmk

the similarities are a few, differences far more ...When people called Vines the best , they only referred to at his peak, not his overall achievements ...

also going by what I've read , Vines had a flat serve & FH, with less margin for error and could be frustrated & taken out of his comfort zone by consistent play/junk balling .....while his peak level was high, his achievements are not GOAT-level

federer simply has more options , much higher margin for error and it is much tougher to frustrate him ...for federer both peak level and achievements are GOAT level ....

Originally Posted by pc1

But still I am amused by Kiki's devotion to Kodes. I will say this about Kodes, his best was higher than many top players I've seen. I think his best was higher than Vilas on fast surfaces for example. I've seen Kodes play out of his mind against John Newcombe. Newcombe had to raise the level of his game to defeat Kodes in that US Open final and I can tell you from watching Newcombe that tournament that Newcombe was playing awesome tennis. I don't remember what the predictions were but I'm fairly certain most people didn't give Kodes much of a chance to even make it that close.

yeah, well Vilas wasn't exactly that good a fast court player, was he ? apart from maybe the 74 Masters where he beat newk, nastase and borg ..

see , I could easily give examples from the present-day where even slamless players have shown much higher/higher levels of play

tsonga looked untouchable in AO 2008 until the finals where his form dipped a bit ..... especially that performance vs nadal in the SF ........ nadal looked totally helpless trying to counter his serving, groundstrokes and amazing volleying ....he was in similar sort of form vs federer in wimbledon 2011 QF ..even for a chunk of the 2012 QF @ the FO vs djoker as well (djoker barely managed to escape , saving MPs)

see davydenko's form in the end of 2009 and early 2010 for another example ..... he defeated almost every top player - fed,nadal, delpo etc ... to win the YEC .. then won doha beating fed/nadal back to back ..... he was a like a machine with his groundstrokes at that time ... finally it was federer who finally stopped him ... he did a drastic change in tactics mid-way through the 2nd set in the 2010 AO QF , that resulted in a letdown for davydenko for some time ..... and then a fierce competitive 4th set that federer finally clinched

see nalbandian @ paris/madrid 2007 and YEC 2005 for another example as well ...... he was playing real well ..... it looked like he understood the geometry of the court as well as anyone and some of the angles were downright ridiculous
he was playing well @ quite a few majors as well : USO 2003, AO 2004, FO 2004, AO 2005, USO 2005, AO 2006, FO 2006 ...

then soderling's runs in FO 2009/2010 where he beat nadal in 2009 and then federer in 2010 ( apart from a host of other good CCers or in-form players - ferrer, gonzales, berdych, davydenko etc ... ) ...... it looked almost impossible to defend against him at times ...
only thing is while he stopped one of fed/nadal at one event, the other one was there to stop him ....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

I think I already replied to your post comparing Vines to Federer ... I don't quite agree with it ..






yeah, well Vilas wasn't exactly that good a fast court player, was he ? apart from maybe the 74 Masters where he beat newk, nastase and borg ..

see , I could easily give examples from the present-day where even slamless players have shown much higher/higher levels of play

tsonga looked untouchable in AO 2008 until the finals where his form dipped a bit ..... especially that performance vs nadal in the SF ........ nadal looked totally helpless trying to counter his serving, groundstrokes and amazing volleying ....he was in similar sort of form vs federer in wimbledon 2011 QF ..even for a chunk of the 2012 QF @ the FO vs djoker as well (djoker barely managed to escape , saving MPs)

see davydenko's form in the end of 2009 and early 2010 for another example ..... he defeated almost every top player - fed,nadal, delpo etc ... to win the YEC .. then won doha beating fed/nadal back to back ..... he was a like a machine with his groundstrokes at that time ... finally it was federer who finally stopped him ... he did a drastic change in tactics mid-way through the 2nd set in the 2010 AO QF , that resulted in a letdown for davydenko for some time ..... and then a fierce competitive 4th set that federer finally clinched

see nalbandian @ paris/madrid 2007 and YEC 2005 for another example as well ...... he was playing real well ..... it looked like he understood the geometry of the court as well as anyone and some of the angles were downright ridiculous
he was playing well @ quite a few majors as well : USO 2003, AO 2004, FO 2004, AO 2005, USO 2005, AO 2006, FO 2006 ...

then soderling's runs in FO 2009/2010 where he beat nadal in 2009 and then federer in 2010 ( apart from a host of other good CCers or in-form players - ferrer, gonzales, berdych, davydenko etc ... ) ...... it looked almost impossible to defend against him at times ...
only thing is while he stopped one of fed/nadal at one event, the other one was there to stop him ....

I wasn't saying the level of play between Vines and Federer were the same but that they are similar in that many have called them the GOAT, they both have forehands called the best ever, both are excellent athletes and great serve. Don't know how you can disagree with that. I know the obvious stuff about Federer have more margin for error and things like that. Vines also was known to have a great second serve.

As far as Kiki's devotion to Kodes is concerned, you're right. Bottom line.

Incidentally as far as Vilas is concerned he did win a few grass majors and some hard court tournaments in his career so he pretty decent as a grass player. I did see the Masters win on grass and Vilas played extremely well that tournament.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me on any point.

Wasn't really agreeing or disagreeing on this specific issue, was just giving my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by pc1

I used to play tournament chess years ago so I did play some really top players in the past. I would talking about non tournament players for example who would allow me to defeat them easily in let's say a known book line.

Yeah but that's the point, unless we're talking about the time the tours were divided/split (and even then it's debatable) the same analogy can't be used for any pro IMO because he has to succeed in a highly competitive professional field, he doesn't face any amateurs.

Originally Posted by pc1

Happy New Year to you and everyone here.

Likewise! I wish everyone good health first and foremost, nothing's more important than that.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

I'm interested.

I saw those numbers on Tennis Channel during the Shanghai Masters (Djoker-Murray).

At 1-all in the second set, Murray had run 1,511 meters, Djokovic 1,679.

At the start they had run a graphic saying that Murray had run 143,962 meters in the 2012 season.

[krosero]

Here are some insane stats for Nadal-Coria at Rome '05, in the press reports:

In five hours and 14 minutes - the longest ATP final since 1990, when the tracking of such records began - Nadal and Coria uncoiled a total of 2,800 strokes, an average of 55 a game (including serves and service faults). During one intense burst, Nadal broke Coria's serve to take the third set in a 21-minute game that spanned 11 deuces and 223 strokes. In all, the two played 378 points - 190 for Nadal and 188 for Coria.

The radar gun in Rome added to the story of two players growing weary as the match wore on. In the first set, according to the Tennis Channel, which televised the match, Nadal hit his ground strokes an average of 77 mph. In the first three games of the fifth set, he averaged just 69 mph. Coria, meanwhile, sprinted the width of the court, including the doubles alleys, three and a half times - about 126 feet - during one 13-stroke rally at 5-all in the final set, after 4:49 of play.

"I'm a little bit disappointed because I ran for five hours just to lose with two points," Coria said after the match.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

I saw those numbers on Tennis Channel during the Shanghai Masters (Djoker-Murray).

At 1-all in the second set, Murray had run 1,511 meters, Djokovic 1,679.

At the start they had run a graphic saying that Murray had run 143,962 meters in the 2012 season.

Since 1 mile equals 1609.34 meters, Murray ran 89.45 miles in 2012. Over a period of let's say 11 months, that's not that bad. That is 8.132 miles per month. To be honest that doesn't seem horrible to me on the legs. My assumption is that would be much higher than average. I would think Djokovic would be higher considering he won more matches.

Still curious about Vilas in 1977 when he played 159 matches.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Since 1 mile equals 1609.34 meters, Murray ran 89.45 miles in 2012. Over a period of let's say 11 months, that's not that bad. That is 8.132 miles per month. To be honest that doesn't seem horrible to me on the legs. My assumption is that would be much higher than average. I would think Djokovic would be higher considering he won more matches.

Still curious about Vilas in 1977 when he played 159 matches.

Well in any comparison with the past, one thing to keep in mind is that Murray played a majority of his matches on hard court. Hard was not the predominant surface in the past. Vilas is an interesting example, because he played an enormous amount of tennis in '77; but a solid majority of his matches were on clay.

And because the new equipment has increased the power and speed of shot in the game, a baseline war of attrition in today's game requires more running at high speeds. That's simply because the ball is traveling faster on average.

That's not to say that claycourt tennis in the 70s was not grueling; nor is it to say that all the claycourt matches of that period were as slow-paced as you would sometimes see when Borg played Vilas. Borg was content to keep the ball in play because he knew he could defeat Vilas easily that way; not all claycourt tennis of the era was so deliberate and slow.

But I don't think that players in those claycourt battles were running all-out as much as the current players on clay.

And that's just clay. Nowadays you've got long rallies taking place on hard court -- rallies of a length that you would typically only see on clay in past eras. On fast hardcourt surfaces they weren't having wars of attrition back then. Maybe Borg and Vilas were. But all the net players of the day certainly weren't; even a baseliner of the times like Connors, though he rallied a lot, would choose to end the point rather earlier than you see today, by coming into net.

I don't know, the game I see today, especially on hard courts, is sometimes painful to watch. Enjoyable from the sheer point of view of athleticism, of course. But I often wince when see the full-on splits, hardcourt sliding, and unbelievably difficult turns of direction that are so common today.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Well in any comparison with the past, one thing to keep in mind is that Murray played a majority of his matches on hard court. Hard was not the predominant surface in the past. Vilas is an interesting example, because he played an enormous amount of tennis in '77; but a solid majority of his matches were on clay.

And because the new equipment has increased the power and speed of shot in the game, a baseline war of attrition in today's game requires more running at high speeds. That's simply because the ball is traveling faster on average.

That's not to say that claycourt tennis in the 70s was not grueling; nor is it to say that all the claycourt matches of that period were as slow-paced as you would sometimes see when Borg played Vilas. Borg was content to keep the ball in play because he knew he could defeat Vilas easily that way; not all claycourt tennis of the era was so deliberate and slow.

But I don't think that players in those claycourt battles were running all-out as much as the current players on clay.

And that's just clay. Nowadays you've got long rallies taking place on hard court -- rallies of a length that you would typically only see on clay in past eras. On fast hardcourt surfaces they weren't having wars of attrition back then. Maybe Borg and Vilas were. But all the net players of the day certainly weren't; even a baseliner of the times like Connors, though he rallied a lot, would choose to end the point rather earlier than you see today, by coming into net.

I don't know, the game I see today, especially on hard courts, is sometimes painful to watch. Enjoyable from the sheer point of view of athleticism, of course. But I often wince when see the full-on splits, hardcourt sliding, and unbelievably difficult turns of direction that are so common today.

True enough. When I see Clijsters or Djokovic doing the splits it almost hurts me to watch it.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by pc1

True enough. When I see Clijsters or Djokovic doing the splits it almost hurts me to watch it.

really? I get an opposite reaction to it. It's like wow look at them go, that's awesome.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

You're right. It is offtrack. Hoad is of course a great possibility for one match. Power in every shot, speed, stamina, touch and great volleys.

Dan, outside of Hoad, do you care to name any other possibilities?

Probably Gonzales, Laver, Sedgman, Budge, and Vines. They could all get hot, and had the physical ability to raise their games an extra gear.
Not someone like Kramer, who was incredibly consistent every day, but didn't have the "hot" end, and was, in Gonzales' words, "not a natural athlete, and not too fast or quick." Others, like Perry, Newcombe, Smith, among others, simply didn't have the range of great shots to lift their games above the normal.
Some lacked great footspeed, like Trabert, Sampras (who didn't usually need it, except on clay), Becker (slower than Sampras).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Probably Gonzales, Laver, Sedgman, Budge, and Vines. They could all get hot, and had the physical ability to raise their games an extra gear.
Not someone like Kramer, who was incredibly consistent every day, but didn't have the "hot" end, and was, in Gonzales' words, "not a natural athlete, and not too fast or quick." Others, like Perry, Newcombe, Smith, among others, simply didn't have the range of great shots to lift their games above the normal.
Some lacked great footspeed, like Trabert, Sampras (who didn't usually need it, except on clay), Becker (slower than Sampras).

I like your logic here. Good mention of Sedgman.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras is the ultimate bad matchup for Nadal, he is about 10 times a worse matchup than Federer is for Nadal (well Federer of course isnt a bad matchup for Nadal at all, if they played on grass anymore since 2008 Federer would have a losing record on all 3 major slams surfaces by now). Peak to peak Sampras kills Nadal on all but clay.

And you know this how?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Level of play is always hard to define. For example I can play perfect chess against weak players because they don't present me with any problems to make mistakes. A top player may very well make fewer errors when he was at his peak but was his competition making it easier for him.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Your arguments are convincing. On the other hand, fact remains that Federer handled Nadal better when Rafa was young and had more problems with him when Nadal was in his prime.

The most common argument against Federer is that at his peak, he faced lesser champions (Roddick, Hewitt) and great champions who had yet to mature (Nadal, Djokovic).

But the first problem I have with this argument is that Nadal and Djokovic never handled old Roddick as well as Federer handled (really demolished) peak Roddick. The same is more or less true in the case of Hewitt.

Federer, has, first of all, winner/error ratios against Roddick and Hewitt that are higher than anything I have seen from Nadal and Djokovic against Roddick or Hewitt or any other opponent. When Federer beat Roddick at Wimbledon in 2003, he had 61 winners and 12 unforced errors. The differential there is +49, just mind-boggling.

When Federer beat Roddick in the 2006 USO final his differential was +50, which may be even more impressive given that the highest differentials typically occur on grass (winners are easiest to hit on grass).

But you don't even have to look at the match stats; you can see it just in the scores. Federer's worst defeats of Roddick, just going by the scorelines, were worse than anything that Nadal inflicted on a declining Roddick -- excluding claycourt matches, and excluding the final match of their rivalry at the 2011 USO; Roddick was crushed in that meeting but was obviously a shadow of his former self.

Djokovic actually has a losing H2H record against Roddick (4-5), even though all their matches took place against a declining Roddick in 2007-12. And nearly all of those matches took place after Novak won his first GS, ie, during Novak's prime.

Federer's record against Hewitt is 18-8 (with a 15-match win streak). Probably his most emphatic win over Hewitt was in the 2004 USO final: 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. That was a year when arguably Hewitt was playing his best tennis and had won two hardcourt events in the summer coming into the USO.

But Nadal, apart from clay, never beat Hewitt until the Beijing Olympics in '08. By then Hewitt had long left behind his best tennis, having won a grand total of 3 tournaments since that USO loss to Federer.

Novak at least has a 6-1 record against Hewitt: all matches on fast surfaces (Hewitt's best surfaces). But that rivalry began in '06, by which time Hewitt was well past his best years.

Of course some of this (not all of it, by any stretch) could be explained by matchup issues. Maybe Rafa and Novak do not match up well against Roddick and Hewitt -- or not as well as Federer did. But if there are matchup issues that could explain some of this, then there are certainly matchup issues that could explain some of Federer's losing H2H against Nadal.

I'll try to post a not excessively long summary of match stats I've gathered over the years, for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic -- to compare their peak levels.

Hewitt/Djokovic: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=D643&oId=H432

Hewitt/Federer: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=H432

Hewitt/Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=H432

Roddick/Djokovic: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=D643&oId=R485

Roddick/Federer: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=R485

Roddick/Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=R485

[TomT]

Originally Posted by pc1

Guys for all the battles about the strength of Kodes, he was a very good player who really did have a lot of talent.

Agree, but I don't think Kodes figures into the consideration of the theme of this thread. That is, I don't believe that Kodes' best on hard court was as good as a dozen other players who've been mentioned.

By the way, in my posts in this thread I think I forgot to mention Nadal and Murray and Lendl, et al., and imo they have to be mentioned as contenders who, at their very best, might well beat anybody else on hardcourt.

It's a neverending debate, but nice to see all the deeply felt and well researched opinions. And the mild flaming is fun too.

[urban]

Probably hard court is more taxing the legs, but i reckon that wood rackets are more taxing to the arm, because they are more unforgiving and give you enormous pain, if you don't hit the sweet spot. Never heard of the infamous 'tennis arm' in recent time, with which many top players in the wood era had to deal. In the 60s and 70s, that pros played much more on hard courts or carpet, which is even taxing given the hard underground, than on natural surfaces. I remember quite a lot players of the 70s who had knee operations or problems with knees, as Laver, Newcombe, BJK, Ashe, Vilas, Orantes.
I don't know about the more running thing. Fact is, in recent times pros have more time to recuperate, they have more time in between points and games, and have longer rest periods than players in the 60s and 70s. The netto playing time of matches is much lower than than brutto time with all the intervalls. Fact is also, that the pros nowadays run almost exclusively sideways on the baseline, they have evolved a specific technique of turning and stepping around. The last step before the hit is the first to get to the middle of the baseline again. In older days players were running more through on the baseline, on the way to the net they had the split step to get into volley position on the t- line.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

Probably hard court is more taxing the legs, but i reckon that wood rackets are more taxing to the arm, because they are more unforgiving and give you enormous pain, if you don't hit the sweet spot. Never heard of the infamous 'tennis arm' in recent time, with which many top players in the wood era had to deal. In the 60s and 70s, that pros played much more on hard courts or carpet, which is even taxing given the hard underground, than on natural surfaces. I remember quite a lot players of the 70s who had knee operations or problems with knees, as Laver, Newcombe, BJK, Ashe, Vilas, Orantes.
I don't know about the more running thing. Fact is, in recent times pros have more time to recuperate, they have more time in between points and games, and have longer rest periods than players in the 60s and 70s. The netto playing time of matches is much lower than than brutto time with all the intervalls. Fact is also, that the pros nowadays run almost exclusively sideways on the baseline, they have evolved a specific technique of turning and stepping around. The last step before the hit is the first to get to the middle of the baseline again. In older days players were running more through on the baseline, on the way to the net they had the split step to get into volley position on the t- line.

urban, I agree with your analysis.

Have a good "Neues Jahr"!

[zagor]

Originally Posted by krosero

The most common argument against Federer is that at his peak, he faced lesser champions (Roddick, Hewitt) and great champions who had yet to mature (Nadal, Djokovic).

But the first problem I have with this argument is that Nadal and Djokovic never handled old Roddick as well as Federer handled (really demolished) peak Roddick. The same is more or less true in the case of Hewitt.

Federer, has, first of all, winner/error ratios against Roddick and Hewitt that are higher than anything I have seen from Nadal and Djokovic against Roddick or Hewitt or any other opponent. When Federer beat Roddick at Wimbledon in 2003, he had 61 winners and 12 unforced errors. The differential there is +49, just mind-boggling.

When Federer beat Roddick in the 2006 USO final his differential was +50, which may be even more impressive given that the highest differentials typically occur on grass (winners are easiest to hit on grass).

But you don't even have to look at the match stats; you can see it just in the scores. Federer's worst defeats of Roddick, just going by the scorelines, were worse than anything that Nadal inflicted on a declining Roddick -- excluding claycourt matches, and excluding the final match of their rivalry at the 2011 USO; Roddick was crushed in that meeting but was obviously a shadow of his former self.

Djokovic actually has a losing H2H record against Roddick (4-5), even though all their matches took place against a declining Roddick in 2007-12. And nearly all of those matches took place after Novak won his first GS, ie, during Novak's prime.

Federer's record against Hewitt is 18-8 (with a 15-match win streak). Probably his most emphatic win over Hewitt was in the 2004 USO final: 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. That was a year when arguably Hewitt was playing his best tennis and had won two hardcourt events in the summer coming into the USO.

But Nadal, apart from clay, never beat Hewitt until the Beijing Olympics in '08. By then Hewitt had long left behind his best tennis, having won a grand total of 3 tournaments since that USO loss to Federer.

Novak at least has a 6-1 record against Hewitt: all matches on fast surfaces (Hewitt's best surfaces). But that rivalry began in '06, by which time Hewitt was well past his best years.

Of course some of this (not all of it, by any stretch) could be explained by matchup issues. Maybe Rafa and Novak do not match up well against Roddick and Hewitt -- or not as well as Federer did. But if there are matchup issues that could explain some of this, then there are certainly matchup issues that could explain some of Federer's losing H2H against Nadal.

I'll try to post a not excessively long summary of match stats I've gathered over the years, for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic -- to compare their peak levels.

Hewitt/Djokovic: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=D643&oId=H432

Hewitt/Federer: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=H432

Hewitt/Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=H432

Roddick/Djokovic: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=D643&oId=R485

Roddick/Federer: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=R485

Roddick/Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=R485

Krosero, while I definitely agree overall with your post (and other ones in this topic) and do think that Roddick at his best would be tough on faster surfaces for any version of Novak (and Nadal) I do have some disagreement regarding Novak-Roddick H2H and you saying that all of their matches were between declining Roddick and prime Novak.

The reason being that Novak's career trajectory has been a bit different compared to players like Nadal and Fed after they won their first slam in that he didn't really improve as a player in the years following his first slam win and even regressed in some regards, for example I'd say his 2007 level is higher than both his 2009 and 2010 levels even though it was before he became a slam winner (he had serving and confidence issues in both 2009 and 2010).

Also remember, Roddick had a sort of a resurgence in 2009 (when he hired Stefanki as a coach), he played excellent in 2009 AO and his serving performance throghout Wimbledon was the best I've seen since Goran's 2001 run (Roddick almost matched his ace count) and 3 of his wins over Novak came in that period, now I don't discount them of course but I wouldn't exactly say those 3 matches atleast happened between post prime Roddick and prime Novak considering their level of play in that year.

Of course, Roddick also beat Novak at the beginning of 2008 when Novak was in great form, as a matter of fact in 2008 Dubai Roddick beat both Novak and Nadal in straights back-to-back and also beat Nadal in 2010 Miami SF, considering that 2008 and 2010 were definitely subpar years for Roddick and that 2008 and 2010 are widely considered to be Nadal's best years to date those results are very telling.

I would also like to add that one player from Fed's era who had success against Nadal is Davydenko, he's 6-1 against Nadal on HC, two of those victories coming in masters finals (Miami and Shanghai) yet he didn't manage to beat Fed until 2009 YEC, he was 12-0 against him up until that point.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Year-end ranking position of Roddick and Djokovic in 2009?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Year-end ranking position of Roddick and Djokovic in 2009?

#7 compared to #3 but that is atleast partly due to Novak being a younger guy who played a brutal schedule in 2009 (he played 97 matches compared to Roddick's 63) and Roddick having an understandable letdown after missing the chance of a lifetime to win Wimbledon and injury issues (though he did play well in Canada, he had a series of very poor results after that as a combination of the above 2 factors IMO), I was more talking about the highest level of play both reached that year.