Who is the best, when their game wasn't?

[vwfye]

Who was the best player to find a way to win when his/her game obviously wasn't it's best in the moment?
Completely subjective, I know, but I'm curious to see who you would put there.
Another way to ask would be, "Who was the best at winning ugly?"

My pallet of players isn't vast enough to give an answer.

[forzamilan90]

Brad Gilbert?

[NatF]

Federer is pretty good at it. Hence the quarter final and semi final streaks.

[vwfye]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Brad Gilbert?

No, no, no! I've been using that term since before that clown used it for his memoirs.

[TennisFan436]

On the WTA tour: Serena Williams

ATP: Djokovic.

[M Dean]

my pick is sampras!

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by M Dean

my pick is sampras!

I don't consider Sampras particularly stellar in this regard. That's not to say that every five-set or tough four-set match he ever won was him at his best. Far from it. But there was always the possibility when plan A wasn't working, for him to stick to his guns and lose, even against far lesser opponents. This was most evident on clay, but happened elsewhere occasionally too.

[pc1]

I think the better question is who maintains a strong level of play consistently. Players like Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Riggs, Budge, Nusslein are among the players of the past who kept a very high level almost all the time. In recent times of course you would have to say Nadal and Federer. And in recent years you would add Novak Djokovic to that list.

Ellsworth Vines was known to be erratic at times as an amateur but in the pros his record indicated that his level of play was consistently high.

[vwfye]

Actually, that is not at all the question I wish answered, but thank you.

[Lavs]

Originally Posted by NatF

Federer is pretty good at it. Hence the quarter final and semi final streaks.

+1 for Fed. He is brilliantly able to win when his game is off

[pc1]

Originally Posted by vwfye

Actually, that is not at all the question I wish answered, but thank you.

Okay I guess you mean who is the best which they are at their worst. Billie Jean King once said that she's seen Laver play just terribly and the next day play out of his mind. What that meant to me is that he won when playing badly. So I guess Laver is a possibility here.

I've seen Connors pull out matches on sheer determination like his famous match against Pernfors in 1987 at Wimbledon. Connors was being slaughtered 1-6 1-6 1-4 and won the match.

Agassi once said essentially (not the exact words) that Sampras can play badly for most of the set, stay even because of his serve and then play good tennis for a little while and win the set.

I'll go with Sampras.

[zagor]

In this regard the best I've seen by far is Federer because of his balance between offense and defense, reliable serve and excellent slice.

[magnut]

Its usually the better all court players of any era. The real fighters are good as well.

Ill say Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Lendle, Wilander, Chang.

There are a lot for sure but those guys seemed to find ways to win when they were not playing there best.

[galain]

Courier used to be able to scrap his way out of a bad day when he was at the top.

I like Chang for this as well. I think it's more of a baseliner thing. If you're serve is off and you're coming in all the time you don't really get a lot of chances to stay in the match.

[Flash O'Groove]

Maybe the defensive players have an edge in that department because their strategy is simpler: if they are in a bad day, they can stick to chasing down every balls back, as good as they can. On the other hand, an offensive players have to take a lot of decision regarding shots selection.

In both case, the players have difficulties to execute correctly their shot. But in the second case, they have also some difficulties with their game plan, which is more demanding.

Overall the player who win the most when he plays the worst is the one who has the greatest margin against his opponent.

[robbo1970]

I think Navratilova.

I recall a comment made by Chris Evert, saying that Martina's best was better than hers and Martina's worst wasnt as bad as her worst.

I just think in terms of dominance, no-one can have good days every day, so my vote is Navratilova.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Maybe the defensive players have an edge in that department because their strategy is simpler: if they are in a bad day, they can stick to chasing down every balls back, as good as they can. On the other hand, an offensive players have to take a lot of decision regarding shots selection.

In both case, the players have difficulties to execute correctly their shot. But in the second case, they have also some difficulties with their game plan, which is more demanding.

Overall the player who win the most when he plays the worst is the one who has the greatest margin against his opponent.

Well yes but if the opponent gets hot they get blown off court.

I still think that players that are balanced between defense and offense like Federer and Borg (along with having excellent serves) are the best in this category.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by magnut

Its usually the better all court players of any era. The real fighters are good as well.

Ill say Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Lendle, Wilander, Chang.

There are a lot for sure but those guys seemed to find ways to win when they were not playing there best.

There you have it.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by pc1

Okay I guess you mean who is the best which they are at their worst. Billie Jean King once said that she's seen Laver play just terribly and the next day play out of his mind. What that meant to me is that he won when playing badly. So I guess Laver is a possibility here.

I've seen Connors pull out matches on sheer determination like his famous match against Pernfors in 1987 at Wimbledon. Connors was being slaughtered 1-6 1-6 1-4 and won the match.

Agassi once said essentially (not the exact words) that Sampras can play badly for most of the set, stay even because of his serve and then play good tennis for a little while and win the set.

I'll go with Sampras.

I always liked Pernfors and his craftiness, his big windshield wiper forhand, lobs, dropshots, fast feet and retreiving ability. But, how in the heck did he get up 6-1, 6-1, 4-1 on Connors? It's not so much the result - I'd accept that Pernfors at that time could pull an upset - but he was destroying him.

[kiki]

Borg.he was nearly unbeatable even if not 100%.Specially on clay.