Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I think it's never been done, not in a gazillion years.
Whose GOD-MODE level was the most impressive?
- Thread starter Mike Sams
- Start date
I think it's never been done, not in a gazillion years.
90's Clay
Banned
Laver did it twice.. I think Budge did it as well
90's Clay
Banned
Yea that was probably the highest level Ive ever seen.. Or at least witnessed first hand.. I'm sure Laver's 1969 Level all year has to account for something but sadly I didn't get to witness that.. Nor none or Pancho's work on the tennis court.
I don't think I will ever see that type of level like I saw from Sampras.. He was zoning and just bullying guys during that time.. He wouldn't even allow anyone to get into a rally with him..
Fed's AO 2007 level and Nadals 2008 French Open level deserves some praise here as well. I don't know if it measures up with Pete's zoning, but they should be up there
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think hardcourts existed back then, did they? I thought 3 of the Slams were on Grass.
nethawkwenatchee
Professional
he lost to vince ain't afraid of ya spadea (in the 4th round) at the AO !
but i guess you were thinking on the next AO... his 4th straight slam final, winning 3 of them, which was indeed a great achievement.
... as was coming back from #141, but i don't think it really corresponds with what people mean with "god mode" (sounds more like a "resurrected jesus mode", in fact).
Speaking of the Australian Open: Agassi hadn't lost a set up until his run in with Spadea (so he was playing well)
90's Clay
Banned
In terms of the surface.. Yes I dont think anyone has done it.. I know Wilander won 3 in 1988 but not sure of the 3 slams.. Too lazy to look. ROFL
oy vey
Semi-Pro
Murray said in an interview to Charlie Rose that Novak had the best season in history, for all it's worth.
Sampras never won a slam without dropping or set or really came close to it. Federer was never threatened at 07 AO and Nadal at a couple RG's.
Fed 07 AO > any version of Sampras
The bold would be my pick. His backhand was at its very best, forehand and movement as good as ever, serve strong, and - the standout for me - his shotmaking was more consistently brilliant than I've seen it before or since. Best level of tennis (with the results to back it up) that I've seen for a ~6 month period. 8 tournament wins (10 if you go from Halle 2006 to Dubai 2007), including 3 slams and the YEC.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Nadal's 2010 run is being badly overrated. His 2008 run was far more impressive and his pure standard of play was higher.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
2007 would be. And I think his best set there was the second one (6-4 6-0 6-2 it was).
Zarfot Z
Professional
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
This is the match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z24imRYGL8
This is the second set only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4BRktytaS4
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Have to say Djokovic. His '11 season had NO weakness, honestly. Fed always had a BH problem and Nadal exploited that. Nole almost had no weakness in 2011 and if he played like that in 2012, he wudve destroyed Fed at Wimby, we all know that. However, Nole's level was always going to be more difficult to sustain because of how physical it is.
Fed was actually really lucky in the 04-07 years as the surface was suited to his game (that was apparent because he seldom won on clay whereas Nadal and Nole can win even on their weaker surfaces). Also, his opponents were joke compared to today's Nadal, Nole and Murray. Plus we have Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer (who is great on clay).
Fed has won only 5 GS since these players have arrived (in 5 years which is not that impressive for GOAT player)
For all im a Fed fan this impressed me the most really
have to say i don't agree. yes, federer has a backhand problem since the modern game is ruthless on single handed backhands. but it is also ruthless for those with other weaknesses, and every player has them. if djokovic did not have weaknesses he would not lose. the truth is djokovic doesn't have the best serve of the best 4, doesn't have the best movement (maybe he is equal with nadal on raw speed), doens't have the best slice (he has the worse), doesn't have the best volleys, the best overheads, the best half volleys. he is not the best at offense, he is not the best at dealing with changes of pace, and maybe some other stuff. and djokovic versus nadal at wimbledon is allways different than versus federer at wimbledon. nadal is not a natural grass player. we saw the way federer and novak moved on their game, didn't we? federer moved elegantly, as allways, novak looked awfull (and this not a glitch in his game, this happens a lot). still, kudos to him for his season, very impressed.
now, saying federer is lucky because the surfaces suited him is just plain wrong (at best). unless you accept that nadal and novak are also lucky that they slowed down the surfaces. if you do, them we should agree that this is pointless talk.
the opponents talk is even crapier than the surfaces one, and you should be embaressed. 'those' players are still beating younger opponents, and:
berdych is 27 years old, older than nadal, novak and murray; ferrer is 30 years old; tsonga is also 27, older than the other guys in top 3; del potro has a terrible h2h against federer, why talk about him?
PLUS, federer is, to my knoweledge, 31 years old, so the fact that he is NUMBER 1 IN THE WORLD makes your comment senseless. hes has won more than anyone else in history, so your are really saying that post prime federer just winning 5 GS in the last 5 years in terrible? it's the same amount as novak's GS, LOL. the different is that federer has 12 more... and nadal, tsonga, berdych and ferrer, the players you oh so like and think are a great threat to federer's greatness were already here. novak and murray came on tour strong on 2007, so that's 6 seasons, now. look at their ages.
the only player to have 'arrived' in the last 5 years ago is del potro and look at federer's h2h in grand slams (and look at his h2h with murray, too)...
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
That is funny.
tedmeister
Rookie
FEderer's...Still an ONgoinG SAGA...the hero lives on to fiGht another DAY. Of course a Great hero needs the best foil...it came in the Persona of NOvak and RAfa. NOW it is up to ROger to decide whether he will continue reaping the Laurels of VictorY or spend more time with the FAm. LatelY, he is startinG to BElieve aGain. Tennis is more about what Goes on between your ears at that level. They are like Gladiators from the days of ROme...their fatE is in the hands of the MOB. I believe he is trying to make the best of both worlds...an even impressive feat in this day and AGe...^
Last edited:
Semi-Pro
Hall of Fame
I agree. 2008 Nadal actually faced stiff competitors and plowed right through them with ease, and won the tougher matches with great will and determination.
2010 Nadal faced pathetic mug opponents since at the time practically the entire top 10 was slumping except Nadal so he took advantage.
This is why I consider Fed haters the most delusional out of all delusional tennis fans.
On grass, a Federer that's playing reasonably well would beat Djokovic no matter how well he is playing. A Djokovic that loses sets to the likes of Bagdhatis and Tomic was going do "destroy" Federer on grass? :lol: Even though he got embarrassed on clay, which is Federer's worst surface? Please.
Also, it should be a rule that people, who imply preposterous sh*t such a "weak eras" should be permed from the boards automatically. Djokovic should pray to God, that he isn't 5 years younger and didn't discover his "gluten free diet" during 2004-2006. While I can't say anything for Nadal, I am certain that Djokovic would be hard pressed to win slams at all. If current Federer can give him fits, what would the Federer of old do to him?
Not to mention the absurd notion that Federer's BH is a weakness. Why is it then that people with better backhands than Federer also have terrible records against Nadal? It's almost like it really doesn't matter whether your BH is good or bad against the likes of Nadal.
Djokovic got bagelled by Nishikori and went 1-2 in the WTF. That alone completely disqualifies him from any discussion as in best season of all time.
EDIT: As for why Federer "only" won 5 slams since 2007: he is 31 years old. People tend to win less as they get older.
Dark Magician
Professional
It has to Djokovic 2011 season and Fed 05-06, though i might give Djokovic the edge (since the average level of Nole in 2011 till US is little > average level of Fed IMO) and another proof is the fact that he was so good in 2011 that even after accomplishing so much in 2012, people think his level and gone way way way low, but in reality he is a bit less confident and is no more Underdog to Fedal!!
:?
He almost lost to Federer in USO even though he was beasting, while Federer was gassed and started shanking balls left and right. How is such a thing even possible.
Dark Magician
Professional
Well ur right about the fact that he seemed gassed and tired but he also lost mentally. And as good or perhaps i should say as great Fed is, he shanks even when he isnt tired. It was Djokovic's mental strength that he came up with that return at match point. For Being good u need mental strength too, he out-played Fed mentally and then out-played Nadal in the Final which could have even been a 3 setter. That was Extraordinary and Fed seasons were also very close, just just a tad bit behind. However Novak did screw up the remaining season.
the fact that you consider that hail mary retun of his a sign of mental strength, show how ignorant you are of this topic. If anything, that was a sign of mental weakness, as was the fact that he was broken in the first place.
Forget Federer's best season: you could seriously ask whether Federer's 2004 season is better than Djokovic's 2011. It probably isn't, but just saying.
Dark Magician
Professional
Well if by any means u think i am trying to downplay Fed, then u are wrong.
Fed played great US open SF and schooled Djokovic at RG yet i believe Djokovic was too good in that season. And Djokovic got broken in AO2012 in 5th set (his 2012 season is weaker than his 2011, isnt it?), yet he came back and won. He was 2 sets down in RG 2012, yet he came back and beat Nadal in 3rd set, thats not Luck. In US, after that return he was still 3-5 30-40 down and won 7-5, not even 7-6 in a TB. That season was amazing!
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Who did he not face at any slam that would have beaten him:
2010 French- LOL, next.
2010 Wimbledon- Federer and Djokovic would have both been spanked by Nadal the way they were playing there, and Murray who was playing well was beaten in straight sets in the semis.
2010 Wimbledon- Djokovic faced and lost decisively to Nadal, and Federer was not likely to have beaten Nadal here either. Murray would have had the best chance but as it was he came in on a hot streak and still got hit off the court by Wawrinka.
Dark Magician
Professional
May be. I am no Tennis expert or analyst. Just a fan. I personally thought Novak's 2011 was being underrated, so gave my opinion.Yet not better than Federer's best season.
You miss the point. People are saying that all his credible opponents were off their game and they were. He had to beat Federer and Djokovic to win his big titles in 2008. He had to beat Soderling, Berdych and Djokovic to win his big titles in 2010. 2008 was more impressive.
Feather
Legend
I admit Novak Djokovic played very well in 2011 and that's not debatable. It's silly to say that Novak would have destroyed Roger at Wimbledon. Did you forget the RG 2011 semi final? Clay is Roger's weakest surface and Novak's best surface after hard court. Roger won that and you say that Novak would destroy Roger in his best surface.
Feather
Legend
Rafael Nadal is GOD on clay. Roger lost to him many times and even though I am a die hard Roger Federer fan, I admit that Roger was lucky to win an RG. Roger would not have won 2009 if not for Robin Soderling taking out Rafa. However, Roger is without doubt, at least for me, a better clay courter than Novak Djokovic. He has bagelled Rafa on clay, and even when he is way past his prime he defeated Novak in a five setter at RG. I saw one of your posts in which you said Roger was in his form of life and still he lost to a lacklustre Rafa in 2011. If you think a 30 year old Roger was playing his form of life then I don't have anything more to say. You need to, like some other poster said, watch Roger during peak on clay..
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Beating Federer in slams is never that difficult for Nadal, and that is the only new name you presented. Also arent you the one who was trying to argue what a great player Berdych is?
Are you claiming that Nadal's 2010 is better than his 2008 yes or no. If no, I'm not gonna waste my time here.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Yes. 3 slams > 2 slams. Pretty simple. In what planet is that not a "better year". First guy ever to win slams on all 3 major surfaces in the same year. Only bitter Nadal haters (aka 99% of Planet TW) would try and downplay its worth, and dismiss the standard of tennis he played in 2010.
I could agree his standard of tennis at times might have been even higher in 2008, but that only speaks to how outstandingly he was playing in 2008.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
But in 2008 he won the olympics (and on Hard Courts), so he had big titles in 3 different surfaces too.
IMO 2008 Nadal is better than 2010, he was playing much better.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
He was actually playing better in 2010 outside of clay. Clay though 2008.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
That is how I feel too. 2008 Nadal > 2010 Nadal on clay, although 2010 Nadal still reached a level none of todays other players have ever reached on the surface (as did Nadal of 2006, 2007, some of 2009, 2012, and maybe 2005 as well). On other surfaces though Nadal of 2010 was better, especialy on hard courts, he was never serving how he did at the 2010 U.S Open including when he won the Olympics.
That is just silly. Federer's 2005 season was also superior to his 2007 and 2004 seasons.
Nadal's opposition in 2010 was laughable. He lost to Ljubicic and Roddick during the spring hardcourt swing, had laughable opposition during the claycourt swing and the grass swing and had a virtual cakedraw to the final in the USO.
In 2008, he lost to an on fire Tsonga, had an unholy clay court season, a legendary grasscourt season, and a very good hardcourt season. (beat a Djokovic on top of his game in Beijing and Paris)
No way 10 was better than 08.
Isn't it circular logic? We can also say, despite Djokovic's god mode smashing everyone including Godmode Nadal, the less-than Godmode Federer score wins.
Godmode Federer lose to Nadal
Godmode Nadal lose to Djokovic
Godmode Djokovc lose to Fed
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Like I said name any opposition who would have likely beaten him at the 3 slams (something nobody has been able to do yet). Otherwise your excuse making argument goes nowhere. So what if he lost some matches on hard courts, Nadal on hard courts is never going to go 60-0 or something on a year, he didnt in 2008 either. He still won the years biggest clay, biggest grass, and biggest hard court event, the only one in tennis history thus far to do so in a Calendar year. There is nobody in the draw who had a hope in hell of beating him either at Roland Garros or Wimbledon that year so your draw argument is pointless. Believe me I would have quite enjoyed watching Federer get spanked badly in the finals of both events had he made them, but he didnt so Nadal had to be satisfied spanking the guy who overpowered Federer in a previous round instead in both cases. Only at the U.S Open could someone maybe argue Murray (or at a major stretch of desperation Federer, lol) but anyone who saw that event who isnt incredibly biased against Nadal (which eliminates 99% of Planet TW of course) knows Nadal was on fire, serving unbelievably for him, and would have been very hard for anyone in the draw to beat, as Djokovic found out in the final being trounced after his huge win over Federer, when even then he had good past success vs Nadal on hard courts.
Federer in 2004 and 2007 lost alot of matches compared to 2005 so that is a unique case, however even then Federer not only lost 2 of the 4 slams, but the WTF title too, so lost 3 of the 5 biggest events, so no I dont think Federer's 2005 is better than any of his 3 slam years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure he striggled against Petzschner in Wimby and actually lost a couple of games against Melzer. In 2008, he probably woul've crushed him losing only 2 games or something. Beating a Federer who actually showed some balls >> beating Berdych. And while he won USO, he never faced anyone like Murray 08 in that tournament.
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
Fed or Djokovic. lol at those choosing Nadal.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
So just because he got off to a slow start at Wimbledon 2010 means his form at French Open 2010, Wimbledon 2010, and U.S Open 2010 was all crap. OK, great logic, LOL! He was playing exceptionally well by the end of Wimbledon 2010, Murray played a great match in the semis and still didnt even win a set. Federer and Djokovic were playing crap grass tennis at that event and would have been massacred had they reached Nadal, but thankfully for them Berdych put them out of their misery before reaching that point.
U.S Open 2010 Nadal was in scintillating form, his best ever tennis on hard courts. He was serving 130+ mph as well, probably the only time in his career he did. It isnt his fault he didnt play Murray in the semis, but seeing this was in the middle of a 4 slam win streak for Nadal over Murray I doubt Nadal haters would have gotten their wish (other than their excuse of Nadal having an easy draw to downplay his performance now down the drain). Djokovic 2011 wasnt much different from Murray 2008, Djokovic was having a subpar year for his standards but was giving off a win over Federer and had found his best tennis of the year at that event, and Murray was a baby as a top player just getting started by late 2008. In fact Djokovic every year of his career even before becoming Djokovic 2.0 was ranked higher at years end and a better player on paper than Murray.
Last edited by a moderator:
abmk
Bionic Poster
nadal got thrashed by tsonga @ the AO ....lost convincingly to murray @ the USO in 2008 and then @ the AO in 2010 ...
then of course he lost to youzhny, seppi, roddick, djokovic, davydenko,ferrero, murray,simon in 2008 in non-slam events
then of course he lost to davydenko, murray, ljubicic,roddick,lopez,baghdatis,garcia lopez, melzer,federer in 2010 in non-slam events
I'd say he had plenty of problems and the defeats were not occasional but far more frequent compared to federer's peak years or djoker's 2011 ...
not anywhere close to winning 3 of the 4 HC events, not winning the YEC, not having a W/L % greater than 90 ( which federer did in 3 years and djoker did in 2011 ) ...
no problems on any surface ? really ? is that why he got ripped apart by tsonga @ AO 2008 ..... is that why he got beaten in straights by murray in AO 2010 ... is that why he lost convincingly to murray @ USO 2008 .... that's 3 losses in 4 HC slam events where his opponents beat him convincingly ....
if federer lost 6 of 7 matches to teenaged nadal, he also won 5 of the next 7 matches ....... nice try with that spin though ....
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
He still won a major event on hard courts in both 2010 (U.S Open) and 2008 (Olympics). He still beat everyone on hard courts numerous times over, in fact more often than not. Did Federer do either regarding clay or Nadal in general in 2005 and 2006, his supposed god years?
abmk
Bionic Poster
He still won a major event on hard courts in both 2010 (U.S Open) and 2008 (Olympics). He still beat everyone on hard courts numerous times over, in fact more often than not. Did Federer do either regarding clay or Nadal in general in 2005 and 2006, his supposed god years?
Olympics is NOT such a major event. Probably equivalent to a Masters 1000 in terms of difficulty , but that's about it ...
federer was consistently making finals in CC events in his peak years, something rafa didn't with regard to his peak years in 2008, 2010 as far as HC goes ...
Dude, you know that Nadal doesn't necessarily need to do anything special to beat Federer. It is almost an anatomical impossibility for Federer to beat Nadal on clay. It is hard to deny how ever that for most people, Federer is in general a tougher opponent than Nadal.
Nadal is a tougher opponent on clay than Federer is on any surface though.
Nadal is a tougher opponent on clay than Federer is on any surface though.
Similar threads
