Peak Play GOATS

[borg number one]

Berdych and Del Potro and even Monfils all have very long strides, but it's not just speed and quickness, you have to make all those very quick small steps to get into position continually. Plus, you have to stop and start all the time as a great mover, so long strides only get you part of the way and with height can easily become a liability. Federer would still have to work with a much different hitting proposition with food prames and no poly strings, but his swing path would not have to be altered as much as Nadal's to hit the ball with a wood frame. Yet, Nadal would make adjustments too. This article is a good one and mentions Djokovic hitting with a wood frame.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...uet-tech_N.htm

"It's the first time in my life" to hit with it, said Djokovic, born in 1987, long after wood joined the museum shelves of tennis history. The fifth-ranked player in men's professional tennis who competes with a Wilson nBlade graphite racket added, "Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."

"It feels like a different game out there, to be honest," 2005 U.S. Open semifinalist Robby Ginepri said. "It doesn't give the pop or the spin that the graphite rackets have today."

It would be "almost impossible (to win a match on tour) unless your opponent misses every single shot," 18-year-old Vania King, one of the USA's more promising players, said while laughing.

"Your chances of missing are a lot higher," top-10 player Tommy Robredo of Spain said. "That racket doesn't get much spin. … If I played with a racket like this, for sure I would have a lot more touch, because you cannot play with power. You have to play with other things" such as spin.

But a few players noticed more "feel" with wood.

"I tried a drop shot, and I knew exactly where it was going to go," said Mike Bryan, who, with twin brother Bob, is part of the top-ranked doubles team in the world. "You can feel it all the way to your hand through the wood."

"Definitely for the feel and touch, it's great," 10th-ranked Daniela Hantuchova of Slovakia said.

But using the wood also led some to observe how much easier the game has become with today's technology.

"You have to have very good technique to play with this one," Russian Kuznetsova said of the wood.

"Technology can hide flaws in your game," Bob Bryan said.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by NatF

No doubt. I've seen clips enough of Rosewall and Laver to know that they're quick, Ferrer is another who is very quick despite his height. But Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are all 6'1 to 6'3 or so and are great movers which good footwork. Against these guys I think Laver and Rosewall would find it very difficult to keep up with. But you're right there is a trade off.

This may be one of those comparisons where we want to say that X was incredibly quick, and Y was unbelievably fast. Just a thought.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Didn't Nadal have two breaks in that third set before he took his foot off the gas and Djokovic started to go for broke? Nadal was a freak in that tournament both physically and game-wise..

That’s what makes it special. By the final stages, all the others seemed to have reached that state of mind when the victim of an inevitable execution understands that all further struggle is futile and begins to toy with sweet images of the afterlife, just like you could sense that Almagro, Federer and Verdasco were already daydreaming about the beauty of the locker room in those final games. Djokovc never reached that stage. He went down kicking, screaming and lifting the kitchen sink as a weapon.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

But apparently one can be too tall, also, and thus not a great mover.

For instance, Rosewall and Laver were both much quicker, faster, and better movers than Isner or Karlovic. Maybe they have longer strides, but these latter two are rather lumbering and slow by comparison.

yeah being too tall is a disadvantage. I think Del Potro at 6'6" is the tallest slam winner so far. Even he has numerous times problems with movements...

Speaking of which, I think of God mode peak, Del Potro's last two matches in 2009 US Open tournament versus Nadal (whom he absolutely destroyed in straights) and versus Federer where we saw probably the most powerful forehands ever hit can be a strong contender for God mode peak. Them forehands were just too much, you can't return something like this. Then his wrist got injured and we haven't seen him unleash power like that since. I really hope he can reach that threshold again, still an incredibly young player.

[forzamilan90]

Here we go, Del Potro mega forehands. This is unplayable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RcxYFBOehU

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

yeah being too tall is a disadvantage. I think Del Potro at 6'6" is the tallest slam winner so far. Even he has numerous times problems with movements...

Speaking of which, I think of God mode peak, Del Potro's last two matches in 2009 US Open tournament versus Nadal (whom he absolutely destroyed in straights) and versus Federer where we saw probably the most powerful forehands ever hit can be a strong contender for God mode peak. Them forehands were just too much, you can't return something like this. Then his wrist got injured and we haven't seen him unleash power like that since. I really hope he can reach that threshold again, still an incredibly young player.

Well put. That tournament was a Deus ex Machina type of moment for Delpo. Fed had no clue what to do in some of those rallies because Delpo just overwhelmed him from everywhere on the court. No matter where Fed tried to to move him to Delpos shots just blitzed him.

The injury destroyed that though I think. He has worked well to cope and move back up the rankings, but he has not come that close to matching that shot potential. Its to bad..because the 09 US Open final was a really amazing performance.

[CyBorg]

Meh, I don't see why it matters who plays best on their best day. Tennis is all about making adjustments from day to day and week to week.

Those who play best through a stretch of time are the best at what they do. You can have a match of your life and perform like crap the next day. Ultimately it looks like you've accomplished little.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NatF

How do you seperate playing level from peak play? Is playing level what you consider their consistant level to be?



Might as I suggest to someone who professes to be a historian, that you should watch more of the Federer matches mentioned in this thread. I would watch more Rosewall if there were videos.



Then how is it that you can so strongly claim that Federer is beneath Rosewall in terms of level of play? I'd venture that I've seen alot more of Federer than you've seen of Rosewall and perhaps Federer combined...



Being taller also helps with longer strides when running. If Federer grew up with wood raquets I think you'd be surprised. His speed and footwork are excellent which would help with his timing with the smaller raquets. He'd also excell in fast conditions...



No doubt, but if you didn't see it how much better is just an assumption.

NatF, Yes, I consider peak play as the best showing in one match or one year while (general) playing level means playing strength over a player's best years.

I could have seen more Federer matches but generally I was seldom thrilled by "modern" matches.

Six years after the peak means a significant decline for any player. Imagine a 34 years old Federer in comparison to a peak Federer...

[jimbo333]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Meh, I don't see why it matters who plays best on their best day. Tennis is all about making adjustments from day to day and week to week.

Those who play best through a stretch of time are the best at what they do. You can have a match of your life and perform like crap the next day. Ultimately it looks like you've accomplished little.

Yes, I completely agree with you, that's why Connors is my favourite ever player, and I think the 3rd best of all-time!

Connors had the combination of great peak level play and maintained that for almost 20 years.

If you are going to look at peak level play only, i would seriously pick Rosol. For that one match at Wimbledon on that day last year, he was better than anybody ever. Amazing to watch, he went for winners on almost every shot and they kept going in time and time again. Although I bet he never plays to anywhere near this peak again.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by jimbo333

Yes, I completely agree with you, that's why Connors is my favourite ever player, and I think the 3rd best of all-time!

Connors had the combination of great peak level play and maintained that for almost 20 years.

If you are going to look at peak level play only, i would seriously pick Rosol. For that one match at Wimbledon on that day last year, he was better than anybody ever. Amazing to watch, he went for winners on almost every shot and they kept going in time and time again. Although I bet he never plays to anywhere near this peak again.

I don't remember who said it, but someone pointed that Rosol player very well in his next match against Kohlschreiber too. Ace, service winners, winners from both wing, etc. But Kolie sliced him in piece with low...slices that the tall Rosol couldn't handle properly. Beside, Rosol's performance against Nadal was great in the service game department, but not in the return game department. A better server could have won this match.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Meh, I don't see why it matters who plays best on their best day. Tennis is all about making adjustments from day to day and week to week.

Those who play best through a stretch of time are the best at what they do. You can have a match of your life and perform like crap the next day. Ultimately it looks like you've accomplished little.

I agree with you. That's why I have a great respect for Lendl, Connors, Rosewall, and even Murray and Ferrer. These last two are far from the top in term of peak play, but they are consistent enough and play very well given their limited abilities to reach the higher playing levelr.

[SassyRamirez]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I don't remember who said it, but someone pointed that Rosol player very well in his next match against Kohlschreiber too. Ace, service winners, winners from both wing, etc. But Kolie sliced him in piece with low...slices that the tall Rosol couldn't handle properly. Beside, Rosol's performance against Nadal was great in the service game department, but not in the return game department. A better server could have won this match.

Yes, he had a nice and positive W/UE ratio against Kohli, Kohli just played him better than Nadal did.

[jimbo333]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I don't remember who said it, but someone pointed that Rosol player very well in his next match against Kohlschreiber too. Ace, service winners, winners from both wing, etc. But Kolie sliced him in piece with low...slices that the tall Rosol couldn't handle properly. Beside, Rosol's performance against Nadal was great in the service game department, but not in the return game department. A better server could have won this match.

Fair enough, I just don't ever remember seeing a player hit as many clean winners and unplayables against Nadal as Rosol did that day. It really was amazing to watch. If I remember correctly the match was on centre court at Wimbledon and the court had the roof on. This definitely made the court play faster, so going for winners was obviously the right thing to do, but Rosol's huge shots just kept going in. I bet even now Nadal cannot believe what happended in that match, it was a real shock.

[hoodjem]

We should start a new thread: Unbelievable One-time Peak-Play.

The stipulation here is that for one match the player rises to an amazing level to best a great player--and never does it again.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

We should start a new thread: Unbelievable One-time Peak-Play.

The stipulation here is that for one match the player rises to an amazing level to best a great player--and never does it again.

Rosol lol.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Rosol lol.

Exactamundo.

[borg number one]

One match? That's a tough one. Although I will say that Richard Krajicek was absolutely "treeing" (as we used to say) at this particular tournament! His peak play was excellent here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TD0Xjo-Qd4

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

We should start a new thread: Unbelievable One-time Peak-Play.

The stipulation here is that for one match the player rises to an amazing level to best a great player--and never does it again.

Mary Peirce vs Graf French 94
Lori McNeil at Wimbledon 94? Vs graf
Rosol vs Rafa wimby
Soderling vs Rafa 09 French
Bartoli vs Henin at Wimbledon 07 (LOL)

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Mary Peirce vs Graf French 94
Lori McNeil at Wimbledon 94? Vs graf
Rosol vs Rafa wimby
Soderling vs Rafa 09 French
Bartoli vs Henin at Wimbledon 07 (LOL)

Shriver vs Graf at some tournament in 1988 ending her win streak
Craybas vs Serena at Wimbledon in what...2005?
Isner against Fed at DC last year?
Majoli beating Martina h. At the 97 french

Can you tell work is slow for me today...LOL

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

We should start a new thread: Unbelievable One-time Peak-Play.

The stipulation here is that for one match the player rises to an amazing level to best a great player--and never does it again.

Yes, presumably in this thread we are referring to a peak level of play which the player can reproduce on a fairly regular basis in a big event, such as Davis Cup, Wimbledon.
Generally, you can assume that most players will do their utmost to reach their peak level in a big Davis Cup or Wimbledon match. One exception would be Nastase.