What player in history played the highest level of tennis for one match?
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Mary Pierce 1994 French Open SF against Graf.
I know this is probably a male thread but this match so much exemplifies the thread I can't not mention it. Pierce did absolutely everything right in that match, against probably anyone else on tour at the time that match would have ended in a double bagel scoreline. Pierce totally neutralized the Graf forehand, crushed her slice, there was literally NOTHING Graf could do to stop the momentum. Honestly...the whole tournament for Pierce, minus the final, is perfect for this thread.
Although for me, Pierce when playing her absolute best (which was rare) is probably the best female player I have ever seen. Her god mode is right up there with the best. Sadly she was never consistent.
A few more for the ladies
Graf d Zvereva 1988 French Open Final 60 60
Henin d Pierce 2005 French Open Final 61 61
Clijsters d Zvonareva 2009 US Open Final 62 61
Davenport d Sharapova 60 60 (I cannot remember what tournament this was but it was her only victory against Maria in all their meetings and she creamed her)
Dementieva d Serena Sydney SF 2009 63 61 (big contrast to their Aussie SF a couple weeks later)
There are probably a lot more but those are the first that come to my mind
I know this is probably a male thread but this match so much exemplifies the thread I can't not mention it. Pierce did absolutely everything right in that match, against probably anyone else on tour at the time that match would have ended in a double bagel scoreline. Pierce totally neutralized the Graf forehand, crushed her slice, there was literally NOTHING Graf could do to stop the momentum. Honestly...the whole tournament for Pierce, minus the final, is perfect for this thread.
Although for me, Pierce when playing her absolute best (which was rare) is probably the best female player I have ever seen. Her god mode is right up there with the best. Sadly she was never consistent.
A few more for the ladies
Graf d Zvereva 1988 French Open Final 60 60
Henin d Pierce 2005 French Open Final 61 61
Clijsters d Zvonareva 2009 US Open Final 62 61
Davenport d Sharapova 60 60 (I cannot remember what tournament this was but it was her only victory against Maria in all their meetings and she creamed her)
Dementieva d Serena Sydney SF 2009 63 61 (big contrast to their Aussie SF a couple weeks later)
There are probably a lot more but those are the first that come to my mind
droliver
Professional
Disagree 100%. Sampras was so very serve dependent (2nd best in history after Karlovic) for his game to work that it's just incorrect to call what he brought "diverse" in any sense of the word. He was skilled, but he was not GOAT level off the ground. Compared to peak Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal he is at a fairly large disadvantage on all balls in play.
droliver
Professional
The highest level I ever saw was Federer beating Juan Monaco at the US Open in 2011. That match was just jaw dropping with what Federer was doing. It was like a match full of highlights and trick shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYx3FwaUNO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYx3FwaUNO8
kiki
Banned
please, post in the General discusion
Frayed Mains
New User
This.
Another that comes to mind is Safin v Sampras in USO - 2000? Complete destruction.
encylopedia
Professional
I lost a lot of respect for Federer because watching that match live, I felt that I saw in his face that he lost all belief in the THIRD game of the match. Watching live, I announced out loud "he's lost this set already..." I could see it in his eyes, in his body....the same look I've seen so many times as a coach. It's hard to respect that from a multiple slam winner, facing his greatest rival, on his most challenging surface, but with a chance to make absolute history and turn the tables on Nadal.
Moreover...I did not expect his cowed state to last THE WHOLE match. I thought, at the least, he'd dig in, and make a stand by the 2nd set....he didn't. That's not to say he didn't try....but as we all know, their's trying, and their's TRYING.
If Fed didn't play his best, the real tragedy is, most of that was his head....not physical (timing/strength/speed) issues. I could see that happening to journeyman-how-did-I-make-FO final-against-Nadal-what-a-surprise......but for a guy with that many slams, who had been #1 for years......really, shockingly poor stuff - even if this is a guy who's game bothers you deeply.
encylopedia
Professional
Nope. Disagree completely, and anybody who saw Sampras from 93-96 should know better.
At his best off the ground, he was outhitting people like Courier, Chang, Agassi, Muster, Moya, etc off the ground. And players lke Courier, Agassi, Moya etc. most certainly were a match for the top guys today. His average off the ground may have been lower than those players for sure, but actually, it was not an extreme stretch for him to have a better day than them off the ground - it happened fairly often. Since we're talking about peak form, I'd say Sampras' ground game (regardless of how often that peak was reached) was indeed higher than the others...the combination of versatility and power, his incredible speed, and the devastating forehand meant there were times when neither Agassi or Courier could contain his ground game - ultimately, that was a huge mental blow to them (especially Courier), if you can't beat Pete off the ground and you're a dedicate baseliner, then, you're hooped.
However, I know we won't see eye to eye on this. To be very frank, people (and this is a bit of a TW myth) who say Sampras is "so very serve dependent"....I find that notion so laughable (and so do most professional reporters, and players/coaches) that I tend to think it rather hopeless to talk to a person who actually believes that. I think back to 1990 when Don Budge (and you can't get much more tennis-wise than that) opined that Sampras was already a more complete player than Mcenroe ever was....and he was a big fan of Mcenroe.
On top of all that, your argument does not even make sense in that you take issue with me saying "diverse" and then opine that Pete's ground game wasn't as good as Nadal, Djoko, Fed.....which is irrelevant....because even if somebody had a lesser opinion of Pete's groundstrokes, he would still remain a far better groundstroker than they are/were at the net!!! (I trust most would laugh at the reverse) So unless you are talking about some other unnamed player with a serve, volley, transition game, speed, power, touch of Sampras ALONG with groundstrokes better than Nadal/Djoko/Fed, your comparison makes little sense.
droliver
Professional
No offense, but in my POV you clearly don't get why Sampras is no worse then the 3rd or 4th best player of the open era. It was always the serve, which is backed up by the numbers. You take a serve hold % from 91% to the tour average in the low 80's (combined with his break serve %) and he goes from GOAT to a player between 50-100 in the rankings. It's singular brilliance allowed him to cover up some areas of his game which were decidedly mortal.
He was certainly not a 1 dimensional servebot, but IMO he certainly didn't possess the same offensive and defensive capabilities the top guys right now have.
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
Yeah, dropping a whopping 10% in your service holds would mean taking a nosedive in your rankings. Thank you for this insight, genius.
Since you're obviously clueless on the service/return equation here's something for you to digest: when players' rankings drop it's almost always due to a decline in their return game, not service. Next time you're on the ATP site you may want to take a gander at Sampras' return stats from his heyday and compare them to those of your idols. Better yet check the yearly service stats of some of the players and see for yourself who's out of depth on this topic.
encylopedia
Professional
If you think something as broad and qualitative as "diversity" could even BEGIN to be captured by a statistic like "serve hold %"......ugh....seriously?? I'm just speechless. You're missing about 20 very tenuous proposition steps required to make that claim valid.... any one of those steps renders this claim laughable.
SURELY, almost anyone can see that?? I'm not trying to be mean here....just....seriously???
I will only answer by saying that serve is the most important shot in the game, and Sampras had a great serve - that in no way takes away from the rest of his game. In fact, even if we were to pretend Sampras had a serve that was only returned 2% of the time ever, that would not make any of his other shots lesser - it's not logically implied. Second, as I'm sure we're all aware, hold percentage is not by any means a strict measure of serve effectiveness - which is why many great players with relatively poor serves can have a high percentage. Of course, surface, opponents, and other conditions also affect this statistic greatly. The stretch in each area is enormous.....just untenable.
By the way Sampras career hold was 89. Federer's was 88.
I hope you're not serious about "the numbers back this up"...and if you are....well we will never reason well together.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Reminds me of another Roddick-Federer match, the epic 2009 Wimbledon final. Roddick held serve and played some of his best tennis for more than 4 hours while breaking Federer twice. Roger managed to take 2 of the first 4 sets in TBs. Finally, in the 77th game, Roger finally breaks Andy and wins the fifth set (and match), 16 games to 14. This match has the distinction of the being the longest men's final in Grand Slam history.
NonP
Legend
In defense of Fed I think Pete also did nearly the same thing against Safin in the '00 USO final. I vividly remember watching the shocking bloodbath that's unfolding on the screen, and one thing that still sticks in my mind is CBS showing a replay of one of Pete's perfunctory, almost lazy volleys at the net and then Carillo chastising him for his lack of spirit and determination. (You might still be able to dig this clip up on YouTube. Happens about midway into the match, IIRC.)
Another thing is that Pete actually had some success when he tried to rally with Safin from the backcourt rather than launch one kamikaze attack to the net after another, which paid diminishing dividends for him as the match got longer. (Of course Fed committed the same fatal error in his own final. Lots of parallels here.) Maybe Pete was mentally spent (physically I think he was OK, unlike in next year's final against Hewitt) or just overwhelmed by the sheer brilliance of his opponent, but this uncharacteristic showing on Pete's part is why I'm not completely convinced by the usual claim about Safin's presumably superhuman level in this match, and why I tend to rate Krajicek's equally infamous demolition job at '96 Wimbledon a tad higher. Sure, Pete might have fought a little harder and kept the score more respectable, and it wouldn't be fair to call it an outright tanking... but it's close. Like you said there's trying and then there's TRYING with a capital T. I'd liken this to Pete's efforts on clay in his later years: not quite packing it up (in his own words), but not completely focused, either.
BTW this is also why I think Nadal (and perhaps Connors) might be even above Sampras in the mental department, or at least in perseverance. (On fearlessness and daring on big occasions I'd give Pete the edge.) Take the '11 USO final, for example, where Rafa was outclassed in just about every area and had almost no answers for Djoko. Yet he still kept pushing (no pejorative intended) and was able to steal the 3rd set in an absolutely draining (at least for him) tiebreak. And of course he managed to do one better and came up just short in next year's AO final, and finally top his nemesis not only on his favorite surface but then on a HC to boot at the 2013 USO after coming back from yet another extensive injury. Now I actually had high expectations for Rafa (my prediction was about 12 majors), but even I didn't foresee him doubling his USO count and threatening Federer in all-time major titles. A truly special player, and maybe even the greatest ever.
But if we're talking about pure fighting spirit Chang is in a class of his own. I take it that you already know why. :wink:
encylopedia
Professional
I agree completely with all you've said.
Regarding that USO final...yes, I too thought it uninspired at best, and had wondered: what is going on with Sampras? I also, felt Safin's performance slightly overrated (though he's a tank for sure), just as I felt Pete helped Hewitt look great a year later.
He did look tired to me in that final (and now that we have confirmation of the anemia, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was a factor). Of course, as we know, with that level of fatigue, even your concentration/focus will be diminished. (It was all the more perplexing in 2000, given his excellent wins over Hewitt and Krajicek just prior). I too noticed the strange strategy which did indeed again suggest he wanted it over...he looked (strategy-wise)...well....like the tired, middle-aged, decent 4.5....who went too far in the draw, and now just doesn't have the legs. A bit inconsistent, a fraction off his timing, just not sharp, and sometimes just looking for quick ways to win points(eg. the suicide rushes you mention)....lost. In both cases, it seemed unlikely to me, he'd go through the draw that far, only to suddenly look....well old and slow and weak....without there being some other unusual factor at work - but how much so all these factors were in play? Can't be sure.
When I spoke of his mental toughness, I was referring, as I explained, to that seemingly impervious to nerves demeanor he'd display on critical points....but for sure...he did play some lackluster matches - as you say. I too would put Nadal/Connors, and yes, even moreso Chang above him for sure, in just general career toughness and effort. In fact, I think Pete was underrated as a hard-worker, and a professional, but really, I would probably put many players ahead of him in whole career - as you say, those last years had a lot of lackluster matches - he was physically slower though, so the wins...just weren't coming easily anymore.....and the early pre-93 years too featured some lackluster, laid-back Pete.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Many top players have put in rather lackluster performances and been blown off the court in big time matches. Federer is not alone there.
He tried in the first 2 sets, he ekked out a few games. In the 3rd he lost belief but his strategy was also poor and to blame. Considering the bout of mono earlier in the year and some of the bad losses it's not strange that his confidence was waning.
This doesn't really reflect on Federer's level of play on hards or grass. Both of which are up there with anyone.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes he could have played better.
Great players are only human and no player always plays their best in big matches.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Safin has been great but in Sampras' defense the US Open in those days had the Men's semi only one day before the final. Sampras, but of his Thalassema which affects his stamina had big problems because of that.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'll name some great matches for level of play by one player in big tournaments, not all of them finals and I haven't seen all of them.
Lew Hoad against Cooper 1957 Wimbledon final
Jimmy Connors against Rosewall 1974 Wimbledon final
Jimmy Connors against Rosewall 1974 US Open final
Connors against Tanner 1975 Wimbledon semi
Vines against Austin 1932 Wimbledon final
Laver against Ashe 1969 Wimbledon semi (both players were great)
Laver against Rosewall 1967 Wimbledon Pro final
Laver against Rosewall 1969 French Open final
Borg against Connors 1978 Wimbledon final
Borg against Connors 1979 Wimbeldon semi
Nastase against Borg 1975 Masters
Jack Kramer against Tom Brown 1947 Wimbledon
Federer against Hewitt 2004 US Open final
Nadal against Federer 2008 French Open final
Borg against Vilas 1978 French Open final
Rosewall against Laver 1963 French Pro final
Djokovic against Murray 2011 Australian Open final
Sampras against Agassi 1999 Wimbledon final
McEnroe against Connors 1984 Wimbledon final
Mecir against McEnroe 1987 WCT final
Lendl against McEnroe 1985 US Open final
Budge against von Cramm 1937 Davis Cup
pc1
G.O.A.T.
With Gonzalez perhaps the 1956 Wembley final against Sedgman. Both were in the zone. Sedgman's high level was incredible and yet Gonzalez defeated him 4-6 11-9 11-9 9-7. Apparently many who witnessed that match have said they have never seemed that high a level of tennis.
I was looking at Sedgman against Rosewall and I believe Sedgman won something like the first ten matches he played against Rosewall in the Pros. He held the lead in the rivalry until Rosewall pulled clearly ahead later. Sedgman is over seven years older than Rosewall. I mention this to show the quality of Sedgman's play.
Another would be the 1960 Geneva Gold Cup on clay against Rosewall in which Gonzalez won 8-6 6-0. Another might be the 1959 US Pro final in which Gonzalez defeated Hoad in straight sets or the 1958 US Pro final in which both Hoad and Gonzalez were playing an high levels. Gonzalez lost the first two sets but rallied to defeat Hoad in five.
I mentioned the 1947 Wimbledon final against Brown already. Kramer incidentally still holds the record for fewest games lost at Wimbledon which was set in 1947.
It's hard to pinpoint the best matches with Kramer. For example on tour Kramer blitzed Riggs in one match 6-0 6-0 but that was on the head to head world tour and not big tournaments. Kramer, arguably with a few other players could have the highest average level in the history of the game. He was rarely off during his prime years.
I was researching some Jack Kramer matches around 1948 to 1950 and there were a lot of matches against Don Budge who was past his best but still excellent. I did not see one match in that Budge won against Kramer. Budge may have but I didn't see it in the results. The famous match that Kramer played against Budge was in the 1948 US Pro semi. If Budge won it he very well could have challenged Kramer in a tour (and probably get slaughtered imo). Budge led two sets to one and broke Kramer twice in the fourth set. But Kramer won the set I believe by 6-4. Kramer won the last set with the loss of only one point! I use this as an example about how Kramer was almost always good to great. Budge has the glamor in winning the amateur Grand Slam in 1938 but many who saw them both believe Kramer was the superior player.
Last edited:
Andrew Tas has Sedgman winning his first 8 matches against Rosewall, but 4 of those were amateur meetings before 1953. Then Sedgman took their first 4 pro matches, in '57 (Sydney, Forest Hills, LA, and their first match on the December tour of Australia).
They ended up tied 5-5 for 1957 though Sedgman seems always to have been a difficult opponent for Rosewall. In '58, based on Andrew's records, I have Rosewall with a 7-4 edge, in '59 a 6-5 edge, in '60 an edge of 5-1.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Sedgman to me is one of the all time greats. His best comp is Stefan Edberg except I think Sedgman was far more solid on the forehand while having Edberg was superior on the backhand. Both were very fast and both can be argued to be the best volleyer of all time. But had excellent but not super top tier serves like Gonzalez, Kramer or Sampras.
Sedgman's amateur performance I think in 1952 is one of the most dominating in history. To beat even an aging Jack Kramer 41 out of 95 matches is awesome.
Incidentally I think Sedgman is not just a difficult opponent for Rosewall but for everyone, Kramer, Gonzalez, Segura, Hoad etc.
Last edited:
Agreed. We had an old thread about him here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=221155
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I wish that they had that match on youtube.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
I'll need to answer this in two different ways. The first is the highest relative level and the second the highest absolute level.
The highest level of tennis ever produced is influenced by technology, nutrition, studies of those who have come in the past in order to improve your game, and hence the evolution of the sport. As such the highest level to me is the best dominant level produced in the most recent era. However, I think other peak levels could have possibly surpassed that, had they been placed in a similarly advantageous situation and hence have a lower absolute level, but higher relative level.
Highest relative levels
Single match peak: Lew Hoad
Single tournament peak: Pancho Gonzalez
Single season peak: Rod Laver 1969
Highest absolute levels
Single Match Peak: Roger Federer
Single Tournament Peak: Rafael Nadal
Single Season Peak: Novak Djokovic 2011
The highest level of tennis ever produced is influenced by technology, nutrition, studies of those who have come in the past in order to improve your game, and hence the evolution of the sport. As such the highest level to me is the best dominant level produced in the most recent era. However, I think other peak levels could have possibly surpassed that, had they been placed in a similarly advantageous situation and hence have a lower absolute level, but higher relative level.
Highest relative levels
Single match peak: Lew Hoad
Single tournament peak: Pancho Gonzalez
Single season peak: Rod Laver 1969
Highest absolute levels
Single Match Peak: Roger Federer
Single Tournament Peak: Rafael Nadal
Single Season Peak: Novak Djokovic 2011
kiki
Banned
Yes, it should be taped
Now, which was Newk´s best match? a few to choose from, but not sure which one I´d pick.
OTOH, I heard Bob Lutz say that Ashe´s best one was the Winter Final of the WCT Tour in 1972, held at Rome.Ashe beat Lutz in the final, and I think Lutz had just beaten Newcombe in the semis.
kiki
Banned
Boy, if you were not that obseded about evolution ( yes, we have reached our peak as human beings in 2014, isn´t it?), you´d probably take notice that 67 Laver was even stronger han 69 Laver
It certainly is true that when Hana was in one of those glory patches, she was unstoppable, but she was more likely to fall off the pedestal earlier than those other three because she played some really low percentage tennis. When she was on, there was no such thing, but if the timing slipped just a little at, say, 3-4 in the second even for a couple of games....
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Maybe so, certainly a strong argument could be made in support of that. But if that is your only bone of contention with my post (which one of Laver's CYGS is the strongest) I think I did pretty good.
jackcrawford
Professional
Ellsworth Vines in his 1978 work Tennis Myth and Method, says "In all sports there is a search for fantasy fulfillment, when an athlete transcends the limits of human capabilities. In 1931, the forty year old R. Norris Williams (US Nationals Champ, 1914 and 16)... at Seabright took my first serve from inside the baseline and put it away. His own serve was hard, and he was supreme at the net. I was down 6-0, 3-0 before I knew what hit me." Vines goes on to explain that Williams was wealthy, had many interests, and usually played just to amuse himself with brilliant sets, not to win matches, after winning the two nationals. The fact that Williams survived the Titanic disaster by swimming to a lifeboat and then holding on with his legs in the water for quite some time, and then forced himself for hours to walk around the rescue boat to prevent gangrene from setting in (Titanic, the Tennis Story by Lindsay Gibbs) shows him as likely to have been capable of amazing feats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Norris_Williams.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Newcombe had so many great matches. I have to think about that but the first one that comes to mind for me is his great match against Connors in the US Open quarters in 1973 in defeating Connors in straight sets. Connors was great but lost! Some of his defeats of Rosewall in majors also are possibilities as are his defeats of Stan Smith in pressure matches.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Interesting premise, interesting conclusions. I have some qualms re: Djokovic 2011 given his fall swoon (didn't make it out of the RR at the YEC, if I recall), but I can accept the belief that he built up enough credit b/w January - September to handle that.
I might still go Mac 1984, even with your premise. I guess maybe Fed '06 as a compromise position.
NonP
Legend
Pete's condition most likely affected him against Hewitt (you may already know that he served nearly 10 mph slower in the final than in previous rounds), but not so much against Safin, I believe. For some reason he was unable or unwilling to gut it out in '00.
Or maybe you (and Data) are right and I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Obviously Federer & Nadal are going to come up first and foremost in recent memory, so I tried to dig up a lesser known guy who played unbelievably.
I'd say Wawrinka in the Aussie Final last year is the most recent but Marat Safin in the 2000 U.S. Open Final is always going to be my go to pick for a more and more forgotten player as time goes by who at that moment was untouchable. Watch that whole match, the 10 games he lost he just didn't care, when he felt like beating Pistol Pete, he had no obstacle.
I'd say Wawrinka in the Aussie Final last year is the most recent but Marat Safin in the 2000 U.S. Open Final is always going to be my go to pick for a more and more forgotten player as time goes by who at that moment was untouchable. Watch that whole match, the 10 games he lost he just didn't care, when he felt like beating Pistol Pete, he had no obstacle.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
In that Wimbledon run he had straight set victories but he had to gut them out.
Patrick Rafter had the uncanny ability to go ape for a set or two and then for some unknown reason recede. He would do so to either take the lead or make a comeback only to lose the match in 5. I miss him.
Kalin
Legend
Well, I admit I haven't seen that many Krajicek matches. But like all guys with a big game he could be scarily good when 'on'. Plus, he was an excellent mover and touch volleyer to go with the awesome serve.
I'm also influenced by his winning record against prime Sampras as well. And the one match I most vividly remember was one during the US Open that Pete actually won and yet Krajicek was absolutely awesome.
And Pim-Pim was an animal... but injuries put him down very quickly
I'm also influenced by his winning record against prime Sampras as well. And the one match I most vividly remember was one during the US Open that Pete actually won and yet Krajicek was absolutely awesome.
And Pim-Pim was an animal... but injuries put him down very quickly
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Wasn't that 1982?
mental midget
Hall of Fame
The Seabright Invitational...I live in the town where this club is located, played there many times. i knew it was the oldest tennis club in the country but had no idea it was the home of a major tournament for many years, very cool!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's ironic the modest Ellsworth Vines wrote that because so many all time greats who have seen him play believe he played at the highest level for one match. Heck many of them believe he played at the highest level period.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
sounds like by all accounts he was a phenomenal athlete. golf is a lifetime pursuit all by itself, to excel at that level in both sports is something.
in the Sea Bright tennis club there are a ton of historic photographs, trophies etc. all over the place. i never looked too closely and assumed they were just memorabilia from past members etc. Next time i'm there i'm going to have a serious look around!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's great that you can see the Sea Bright Tennis Club. Not only was Vines a great golfer but he was by all accounts a terrific basketball player. People have said he had incredible power in baseball.
When we talk about the greatest athletes (there are so many definitions of great athlete that I often wonder if everyone discussing it are at least somewhat close in their definitions) people never mentions Vines. But I do think Vines has a great argument that he is the greatest athlete in tennis history simply because he was so good in a number of sports.
